Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Advance Factories

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide the figures for each of the last eight years for (a) the average number of jobs per 10,000 sq ft of Welsh Development Agency advance factory space projected, at the time of letting, to be created within three years, and (b) the average number of jobs now actually in existence per 10,000 sq ft of Welsh Development Agency advance factory space.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I have placed a copy of the detailed figures in the Library of the House. Since 1980 the annual average number of jobs projected is about 38 per 10,000 sq ft of advance factory space to be achieved when the lettings have reached their full potential, which really takes some years. The actual number of jobs created to date already exceeds 30 per 10,000 sq ft.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the greatest problems in projecting the value for money to be obtained from expenditure on regional aid is the difference between performance and reality? Does he further agree that his extraordinary claim last week that he was increasing the allocation of regional aid, when in fact he was cutting it, was one of the worst frauds ever perpetrated on the people of Wales and that it combined the worst aspects of door-to-door salesmanship with the persistence of Jehovah Witnesses, although not many of those witnesses claim to be Jehovah?

Mr. Walker: I delight in the way in which the Labour party in Wales is distressed at every big piece of good news for the Principality. It is remarkable, in view of the biggest increase in regional aid in any single year in real terms and in cash, to find the hon. Gentleman so distressed. I am delighted to say that his constituents will not be.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving a 40 per cent. increase in the amount of regional aid for Wales. As the Welsh Development Agency is having to deal with an apparently insatiable demand for new factory space, particularly in Cardiff and south Wales, this must be of tremendous assistance and will offer great opportunities to continue the economic regeneration that the Government have begun so well.

Mr. Walker: In fairness my hon. Friend should consider that on the Sunday before the announcement the Opposition spokesman spent the whole day announcing

the impending reduction in regional aid. Therefore, when it was increased by 40 per cent. the Opposition were very distressed indeed.

Mr. Geraint Howells: If my memory serves me right, the Secretary of State said last week that an extra £50 million-plus would be allocated to the Welsh Development Agency. Can the Secretary of State say how much of that money will be allocated to Mid Wales Development?

Mr. Walker: Of course, the mid-Wales area gains advantage from the activities of the Welsh Development Agency as well as from Mid Wales Development. I have increased the Mid Wales Development allocation by a further £1·5 million, which is an increase of about 20 per cent.

Mr. Raffan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement that total Government provision for the WDA and WlNvest is to be increased by 30 per cent.—about one third—in the coming financial year has been particularly welcomed in Clwyd where, due to the economic upturn, the vacancy rate on WDA estates has fallen well below 10 per cent. — a level at which our ability to attract investment can be impaired?

Mr. Walker: The announcement has been welcomed not only in Clywd but by trade union leaders, industrial leaders and commercial leaders. The only people who do not welcome it are those in the Labour party.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the number of people employed in WDA factories has gone down in recent years? Should not the Government be setting employment targets for companies that occupy WDA factories? In view of the downward trend, is the Secretary of State not positively alarmed by the report of the independent organisation Manpower, which said after a survey that job prospects for Wales in 1988 are worse than for any other region of Britain?

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman would like to take a wager on the result in 1988 I shall willingly take it from him—perhaps for a mutually agreed charity. If Wales is the worst of any region, perhaps he will give a donation to that charity. I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his usual happy outlook, will be delighted at the fact that the biggest fall in unemployment in Wales since the second world war has taken place in the past 12 months.

Welsh Language

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to review his policies with regard to the Welsh language.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend and I are presently engaged in wide-ranging discussions about the Welsh language. In the light of these we shall consider how the balanced, positive approach pursued by the Government since 1979 might be further developed and the opportunity to learn the language can be extended.

Mr. Butler: Will not parental choice be the real motivation for choosing the Welsh language, provided it wins friends and influences people, rather than alienates people through vicious demonstration? How much are the Government spending on the Welsh language to sustain and nurture it?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right. He will know that the fundamental principle underlying the Education Act 1944 is that children should be educated according to parental choice, and that is the line we are pursuing. With regard to support for the language, we are spending some £1,164,000 under section 26 of the Development of Rural Wales Act and £1,735,000 under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 this year, but that is not the limit of Government support. We support the Welsh language through the entire education system and through the television channel.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that the history of the past seven or eight years has demonstrated very clearly his marvellous exertions on behalf of the Welsh language? Does he appreciate that we recognise that fact and hold him in high esteem?

Mr. Roberts: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that unsolicited tribute. He is absolutely right in saying that our Welsh language policy has been very successful and is accepted and approved of by people of moderate and sensible opinion in Wales. I contrast that with the position of the Labour party, which does not appear to have a policy.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that there is a genuine welcome for the Welsh language panel of eight people appointed before Christmas, albeit that there is neither a woman nor a teacher on the panel? Will he clarify the remarks that he made on a Radio Cymru broadcast before Christmas about the panel's work? Will he state categorically that, contrary to what he said, it will be part of the panel's remit to look at the Bills introduced by Lord Prys-Davies and myself, about which consultation has taken place?

Mr. Roberts: I am sorry if I gave that impression; it was certainly not my intention. The group will be considering the proposals that the hon. Gentleman and Lord Prys-Davies put forward. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would he the first to recognise that things have moved on since that consultation, and we are legislating on educational aspects covered in his Bill.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister agree that, rather than dismiss the Labour party's efforts in support of the Welsh language, he ought to be congratulating us? It was one of his Labour predecessors, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who gave grants to local authorities to support and maintain the Welsh language, and it is the Labour-controlled local authorities in south Wales which have adopted and implemented the policies of developing the Welsh language. Does the Minister agree that, instead of criticising the Labour party for not having a policy, he should be generous enough to accept that the Labour party is fully committed to the Welsh language, and has been for many years?

Mr. Roberts: Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot but notice that that statement was made by him rather than by anybody from his Front Bench. If the Front-Bench Members have a policy, perhaps they would care to declare it.

Rating Reform

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people will be liable to pay the proposed community charge in Wales in comparison with those presently liable for rates.

Mr. Peter Walker: The object of the community charge is to spread the responsibility for the 15 per cent. of local government spending that will come from the domestic contribution to all adults and not just to the householders, so 2·1 million adults will be liable compared with 1·1 million present ratepayers.

Mr. Davies: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that in every district of Mid Glamorgan, which is the county with the worst social and economic deprivation in Wales, every household will be worse off? We noticed the Secretary of State's obvious displeasure and distaste when he commended the Second Reading to the House last December. When he went against his better judgment and voted for the Bill, did he do so to advance his personal ambition, or from fear of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Walker: Both, probably. As I was able to point out, the community charge will be a fairer, better system for Wales. The hon. Gentleman's allegation that every household in his constituency will be worse off is a load of nonsense. Many of his constituents, particularly one-parent families, widows and a load of people who had an unfair burden in the past, will greatly benefit from the changes. In addition, as I pointed out in my answer, as only 15 per cent. of local government expenditure in Wales will come from the community charge, we can organise the needs element in Wales to ensure perfect fairness. That is why I supported the Second Reading happily and I am glad to say that it was cheered loudly from these Benches.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Aberfan, Treharris, Rhymney and Merthyr Vale more than three quarters of the householders are likely to be losers under the so-called poll tax? In the name of heaven, what is the case for increasing costs on some of the poorest householders? I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was supposed to be a "One Nation" Tory, but there is no evidence of it in this case.

Mr. Walker: On Second Reading I pointed out that this depends wholly on the needs element that operates when the community charge is introduced. In the past the hon. Gentleman has given me figures about the poverty of many of his constituents. The basis of the rebate scheme and the nationally spread rebate for those on low incomes may well substantially improve the lot of a number of his most poverty-stricken constituents.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that if we were not to move to the community charge, and were to persist with this manifestly unfair rating system, there would have to be a revaluation of all properties and that the greatest rate demands would be likely to fall on the lower-priced houses, particularly in the valleys of south Wales?

Mr. Walker: The manner and method of operating the community charge will be perfectly good and sensible for Wales. It will remove a great deal of the considerable hardship that one-parent families and others like them have suffered in the past.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State realise that although it is bad enough that the poll tax will mean massive increases for the people in the valley communities, it also has an industrial context? The Secretary of State will recollect that last week he produced his future strategy for employment in the valley communities based purely on small firms, although he cut capital grants to one fifth of what they are now. In that context, will he confirm that the combined effect of the poll tax, the unified business rate and revaluation will be twice as great on small firms as on medium-sized and large firms? How, therefore, does he reconcile his employment aims, as stated last week, with the lower capital incentives of the regional policy and the higher costs implicit in his changes in the rating system?

Mr. Walker: That is a load of nonsense. I now have more money with more flexibility than ever before to encourage small and large firms. Before the right hon. Gentleman makes these pronouncements he should study the facts. Small firms in the valleys will benefit from many of last week's announcements. They will also have available through the WDA and selective assistance every possible inducement and incentive available to larger firms. The combination of our policies is undoubtedly good for the valleys. On the rating system — I should have thought that this was to the hon. Gentleman's delight —I announced that if there was any shift of emphasis it would be to the benefit of Swansea as opposed to Cardiff.

Health Authorities

Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairmen of health authorities in Wales; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Peter Walker: I met the Welsh health auhorities chairmen's committee on 23 November 1987. The main subjects discussed were cash management, locum agencies, medical staff matters, competitive tendering, waiting lists and community health councils.

Mr. Powell: Having had that meeting, the Secretary of State will be as well aware as we are that the problem in the Health Service in Wales is underfunding by the Government. Is he prepared to tell us today that he will provide the funding required by the area health authorities? Is he aware that Mid Glamorgan alone is looking for at least £4·6 million to prevent beds being closed? Alternatively, will the Secretary of State have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that money is invested in the Health Service rather than given away in tax benefits? Does he agree that it is no use taxpayers having tax benefits today if they are going to be dead tomorrow because they do not have the service that should be provided by the NHS?

Mr. Walker: rose—

Mr. Powell: I have not finished yet.

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Powell: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) last week accused the Prime Minister of having blood on her hands with regard to the Health Service. I hope that it is not rubbing off on the Secretary of State.

Mr. Walker: We had a good and constructive meeting with the chairmen of the area health authorities, as I

believe they will confirm. The figures that I have announced for the Helth Service in the coming year show quite a substantial increase. When considering these factors and claiming that the Health Service is underfunded, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that Health Service expenditure in Wales next year will be £1,238 per household compared with £418 in 1978–79.

Mr. Ray Powell: What is the increase in real terms?

Mr. Walker: In real terms it is an increase of 39 per cent., so it ill becomes the Opposition to condemn what has been done.

Mr. Livsey: What formula is being applied to the closure of NHS beds and wards in relation to the increasing number of private beds, which seems to militate against NHS provision very seriously indeed?

Mr. Walker: With regard to the availability of beds, the most important measure is the number of patients treated, which this year is at an all-time record level and massively greater than a few years ago. I believe that that trend will continue. That is the important judgment.
There are, of course, increasing demands on the Health Service as new breakthroughs in medicine take place. That will always be so, whichever Government are in power. We have substantially increased expenditure in Wales and are continuing to do so. The hon. Gentleman referred to Mid Glamorgan. Capital allowance to the district authority next year will show an increase of 21 per cent. in one year, so a great deal is being done.

Mr. Forth: Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairmen of the health authorities the number of new hospitals built in Wales in the past few years and the increased number of patients being treated? Did he reassure the chairmen that his priorities include, not just the number of beds at any given time, but the number of people receiving quality treatment from the Health Service? Did he receive positive answers from the chairmen, and was he able to reassure them on all those points?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. In the past 10 years there has been considerable capital investment in new hospitals in Wales, but that does not remove the anxiety of a person who has to wait to see a consultant or to be admitted for an operation. Anyone who knows people with such problems will appreciate their anxiety. There is room for greater efficiency in the Health Service. There is also a need for increased capital and current expenditure. Both needs are being met.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: In view of that very encouraging reply, will the Secretary of State give a guarantee that no woman in the future will go through the experience of some women in south Wales who have had to wait up to 83 days from confirmation of cervical carcinoma to gain admission for treatment at Singleton hospital in Swansea and Felindre hospital in Cardiff?

Mr. Walker: I am sure that at any time after the last war, and since the creation of the National Health Service, one could indentify ghastly individual cases that have not received attention. However, that is not likely always to be the position. For example, there is a question on the Order Paper today to which I will make a written reply. That question asks me for the comparative figures for waiting


lists between 1978 and the present day. Significantly, the hon. Gentleman concerned asked for the figures from March 1978 and not March 1979. I will also provide the figures for March 1979, because they show the massive deterioration that took place in that 12 months.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the considerable concern in Pembrokeshire where, according to the Welsh Office's figures, the authority is 5·2 per cent. below the Yates' formula? Will he also bear in mind that some health authorities are not only overfunded on the Yates' formula, but overspent? Pembrokeshire, which is a very good and most efficient authority, is converned that it is losing out.

Mr. Walker: All the area chairmen whom I met, without exception, wanted to improve financial control and managerial competence. We must give careful consideration to the quality of staff that the chairmen need to recruit for those purposes.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Secretary of State ask the chairman of Gwynedd health authority to conduct an inquiry into reports that, following the closure of a maternity ward at St. David's hospital, Bangor on Wednesday of last week, expectant mothers were unable to gain admission to that hospital and mothers who had given birth were unable to return to wards? Will he bear in mind that a happy and fulfilling time for many families was turned into a distressing experience for them and for the staff who had to care for them? When he next meets the chairman of the health authority, will he discuss with her the level of funding needed for the authority to ensure that such a distressing experience does not happen again?

Mr. Walker: As we know, further allocations for the last months of this year have been given to all authorities, including Gwynedd. I shall certainly put to the authority chairman the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is much evidence of increased longevity throughout the free world and that, however the systems of health and hospitals are funded, the new and expensive treatments are creating strains for health services?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. That is bound to happen because of the major breakthroughs. For example, the figures for hip operations have been transformed over the years because of the changes in the medical profession. The number of elderly people is increasing. However, we must all understand that the need to have proper treatment, if it is available, is a natural aspiration of every family. I shall repeat the figures and state that when we came to office £8 a week was spent per household in Wales, and the figure is now £24. That is a substantial improvement.

Mr. Alan Williams: Despite what the Secretary of State says, will he confirm that the rate of increase in expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales under this Administration is little more than a half of what it was under the Labour Administration? As the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave £6,000 million in tax cuts last year and is apparently going to give at least the same figure this year in his next Budget, is the right hon. Gentleman not ashamed that all that he could offer the Health Service in Wales and the beleaguered health authorities was £3·8 million extra this year and a standstill on finances for next year? Will he bear in mind that because of the cash crisis in our chest, kidney dialysis and

acute services, with up to four-year waiting lists, we want the Chancellor to use all the resources not further to enrich the already wealthy, but to save the Health Service for our people?

Mr. Walker: I find that a bit thick coming from the right hon. Gentleman. He sat silently as a Minister in the Government who made the biggest cuts in the capital investment programme in the Health Service of any post-war Government. He sat there without a whimper, complaint or a single word. If he is proud of the fact that when the Labour Government left office they were spending £8 per week per household in comparison to our £24 a week, I find that very surprising.

Welsh Language

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pupils in Wales do not receive instruction in Welsh as a first or second language at the ages of (a)seven, (b) 12 and (c) 15 years.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The latest available figures, for September 1986, show that 74 per cent. of 12-year-olds and 27 per cent. of 15-year-olds were receiving instruction in Welsh either as a first or as a second language. Comparable figures are not available for children aged seven, but for primary children as a group, that is aged five to 11, 66 per cent. were receiving instruction in Welsh.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister intend to carry out a crash programme to ensure that there are more teachers of the Welsh language, so that all children in Wales will have the opportunity to learn Welsh?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have some 2,500 teachers in Wales who can speak Welsh, but do not teach through the medium of Welsh. We have been encouraging them with in-service training to enable them to use Welsh as their medium of instruction.

Dr. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that the key time for instruction in Welsh and in other European languages is at nursery and primary level? Will he tackle seriously the issue of linguistic skills in Wales, by ensuring that the skills that have been developed in bilingual teaching at primary level are extended and other European languages are added to them, to ensure that children in Wales have the same linguistic skills as those in any other part of the European Community?

Mr. Roberts: That is my desire, too, but let us not underestimate the point made in my answer to the question, that 66 per cent. of our primary school children receive instruction in Welsh. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be fair enough to admit that, although we should not be complacent about that figure, it is certainly very encouraging. I agree with what he said about children at nursery school age. We owe a considerable debt to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, which has prospered and extended its activities under this Government.

Schools (Community Relations)

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for maintaining a close relationship between individual schools in Wales and their local community, and to ensure full community use of school buildings in holiday periods, at weekends and in the evenings.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Our policy remains that while the use of school buildings for community use is desirable, the extent to which it takes place must be a matter for local education authorities and school governors.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister agree that the best of local authorities in Wales have sought to maximise the community use of buildings and to maintain a proper balance between community needs and the direct educational needs of the schools? Does he agree that that careful balance is under threat with the Government's impending education legislation? Will he give an assurance that safeguards will be built in to ensure that that balance is maintained in future?

Mr. Roberts: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the balance is under threat. I assure him that the position is as follows. Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, school governing bodies are required to have regard to the desirability of school premises being available for community use, but there is no duty imposed on them to provide for such cases. That is the position now. Of course, under the current Education Reform Bill, there is the possibility of community use of school buildings, but their primary purpose is as school buildings, and we have no intention whatsoever of interfering with the duties of the governing bodies of such schools. It is up to them to maximise the use that they make of their school buildings for community purposes.

Mr. Coleman: As playing fields and recreational facilities have been paid for out of the public purse, will the Minister undertake to ensure that those facilities are withheld from public use by opted out schools?

Mr. Roberts: I have made the position clear. We are currently discussing the issue, which features in the Education Reform Bill. As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) knows only too well, we are coming up to those clauses which deal with financial delegation to schools. I am sure that the fundamental principle—that the buildings were built primarily for school use—will remain effective, but it will be up to governing bodies to maximise their community use.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree, first, that the most community-orientated schools in Wales are the small village schools and, secondly, that, in general, the best primary education in Wales is provided by small village schools?

Mr. Roberts: I have no great difficulty in agreeing with either of those propositions.

Young Children (Heart Disease)

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the most recent annual number of babies or young children diagnosed as suffering from congenital heart defects or heart disease (a) in East Dyfed and (b) in Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The most recent information available in relation to the notification of congenital malformation indicates that, in 1986, five children in East Dyfed and 57 children in Wales were notified as having been born with heart or circulatory system malformation.

Mr. Williams: I find those figures quite incredible. I am sure that the true figures are far higher. The Minister is

aware that there are no facilities in Wales to treat children with congenital heart defects and that, whenever they require surgery, they are flown to Bristol, Southampton, or London. Since 1981 the Government have accepted that a paediatric cardiology unit should be set up in Cardiff al the Heath hospital. However, year after year, we have had only promises that it will be set up. May we have an assurance that that unit will be set up during 1988?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Williams: During the Christmas recess I met the parents of Stefan Jones from Napier, who, at eight months, was diagnosed as having a hole in the heart. Now, at five years of age—

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Williams: What does the Secretary of State have to say to Stefan Jones?

Mr. Grist: There is no doubt that babies and their parents in such circumstances are in a most distressing position. It is also fair to observe that the operations about which we are talking are, on the whole, extremely expensive, extremely skilled and relatively new, so I could not honestly accuse Labour of not having provided these facilities. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we are doing our best to bring such facilities to Cardiff. The Royal College of Physicians is to carry out a suvey of cardiac facilities in south Wales, and the South Glamorgan health authority is advertising for a consultant in this area.
As for those aged under one, on the advice of the royal colleges they will still go to Bristol, but, after the establishment of the cardiac centre in Cardiff, that could be reviewed.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that it is lack of quality nursing care that results in delays in operations for hole-in-the-heart patients such as my constituent, Mrs. Keenan, who wrote to me this week saying that twice she had been prepared for surgery at the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff and twice she had been told that the operation was off because of a lack of nursing staff and beds? Do the Government realise what anxiety and stress this causes already very sick patients? Surely there is no sense in the Government's reducing spending on nurses' training, as they have in each year since 1979.

Mr. Grist: I am sure the hon. Lady will also accept that the number of nurses in Wales has increased under this Government by about 3,000. She might, therefore, see the sense of trying to re-order the pay structure so that people are prepared to take on the special skills required in areas such as those about which she has spoken.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that people expect something more than crocodile tears from him? There is now serious concern about the lack of urgency associated with providing these badly needed facilities for young children. Can he imagine the expense and inconvenience of taking a young child to Southampton or to London? When will we have such facilities in Wales? Is this not yet another example of underfunding the NHS?

Mr. Grist: Not at all. I think that the hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the medical profession that provides such skills. As I said in my answer, 57 children fell into this


category at the last count in South Wales. That is a small but desperately important number, which helps to explain some of the problems that are faced.

Public Library Service (Funding)

Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether there will be an incentive funding scheme for the public library service in Wales to match the £750,000 scheme announced by the Office of Arts and Libraries for England; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I intend to observe the progress of this innovatory scheme in England and in the light of that consider whether a similar scheme might be appropriate for Wales.

Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend tell the House for how long he intends to observe the progress of the scheme in England? Does he agree that it could be of particular benefit to the two joint authority schemes currently under consideration in Wales: the future development of the Welsh regional library service, and the development of a regional business information scheme based on the National Library of Wales?

Mr. Roberts: The current scheme involves an expenditure of some £250,000, as opposed to the £750,000 mentioned in my hon. Friend's question, and it is over a period of three years. We shall very soon see whether a similar scheme would be appropriate for Wales. Meanwhile, we expect the library authorities in Wales to be alive to the need to promote co-operation and collaboration, as the scheme will, we hope, do in England. We are currently considering the business information service to be provided by the National Library on a regional basis, and my right hon. Friend is giving it very active consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

"Crockford's Clerical Directory"

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is the commissioners' policy towards the commissioning of anonymous prefaces to Crockford's Clerical Directory, and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Adley: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is the policy of the commissioners towards the commissioning of anonymous prefaces to Crockford's Clerical Directory, and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners and the Central Board of Finance took over the publication of Crockford's from the Oxford University Press in 1984. It had been a long-standing position to include in each edition an anonymous preface in which the author was given complete freedom to express his personal views. Although some earlier prefaces had proved controversial, the extent of the controversy over the current edition is clearly quite exceptional, and, in the circumstances, the commissioners and the Central Board of Finance will be reviewing the arrangements to be made for future editions.

Mr. Greenway: May I pay tribute to the late Dr. Gareth Bennett, whom I knew for over 20 years, for his mastery of theology, his erudition and his warm and compassionate personality? May I ask my right hon. Friend whether Crockford's prefaces, which have been so valuable over the years, will continue, and whether the Church Commissioners will consider giving their authors the option to be open or anonymous? If anonymity is chosen, will it be respected in all circumstances?

Mr. Alison: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind and well-judged words about the late Dr. Gareth Bennett, and I am sure that what he has said will be widely appreciated, at least in Church of England circles.
The question of anonymity is to be reviewed. My hon. Friend's idea of an option of identification or anonymity will certainly be considered by the commissioners.

Mr. Adley: As a background to the affair, does my right hon. Friend agree that, up and down the country, thousands of parish priests are selflessly giving dedicated service to their parishioners, but that many feel that their work is being undermined by a handful of politically motivated bishops?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend has switched the target slightly from the anonymous author of the Crockford's preface, now known to be Dr. Bennett, to the bishops of the Church of England. I entirely endorse his view that the heart and soul of the Church of England are the millions of parishioners who get on with the daily work of Christian living and worshipping in their parish churches. As for my hon. Friend's more controversial point about the bishops, I am only too glad when conservative bishops speak out in a Conservative frame. However, controversy has always been a feature of the Christian religion.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that the preface was a serious piece of work which the Church would do well to consider carefully at its next meeting of Synod and beyond? Does he agree that having a preface that is unsigned can led to unfortunate consequences when the person has to lie about whether he is the author? Should the Church not take that into account when it considers the next edition?

Mr. Alison: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his contribution to this point. As he knows, he featured personally in the preface. In weighing the points that he has made, I should point out that Dr. Bennett was at pains in the preface to praise and laud the standard and tradition of anonymity, which he said he found useful and helpful. At the same time, if it leads to anonymous authors having to repudiate their authorship by lying, the Church Commissioners will obviously have to consider that point in the future.

Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the importance here is the substance of the preface, not whether it was anonymous, which is no concern of the House? In view of the present difficulties of the Church, does my right hon. Friend also agree that, although some of us may criticise the hierarchy from time to time, it surely behoves us to do all that we can to back up the good and godly men who deal with Church of England affairs?

Mr. Alison: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend's comments. In this case, the preface to Crockford's was an exceptionally vigorous and stimulating analysis of


a wide range of issues, including the wider implications for the Anglican communion and certain practices in Anglican churches overseas. It was well worth reading and writing.

Mr. Cormack: Is it not a great pity that more people did not behave with the dignified restraint that the Archbishop of Canterbury showed when the preface was published? Would it not also be a good thing if more of those who talked about it read it?

Mr. Alison: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Staff (Wages and Conditions of Service)

Mr. Skinner: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, whether there are any plans to review the wages and conditions of those staff working in the House; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Beith: (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Under the requirements of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, the grading and pay of staff of the House are kept broadly in line with those in the home Civil Service and are linked appropriately. Pay of staff of the House is reviewed at the same time as, and in line with, that in the Civil Service.
Under similar provisions, the other conditions of staff of the House are kept broadly in line with those in the Home Civil Service. These are reviewed from time to time and changes may be applied after management has taken account of the circumstances of the House, in consultation, as appropriate, with the trade unions.

Mr. Skinner: Will the deputy leader of the official wing of the Liberal party, if he can wrest himself away from all these merger talks—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is answering for the Commission.

Mr. Skinner: That is his title. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of the wages and conditions of staff who work in the House—those who clock on and off, unlike hon. Members—are paltry by standards outside? Will he also bear in mind that recently there have been several instances of staff being treated, particularly by Tory Members, as if it was "Upstairs Downstairs"? They are being treated like servants. Will he draw the attention of his colleagues to that fact and stop this nonsense?

Mr. Beith: I knew that I can rely on the hon. Gentleman to offer me a friendly and encouraging word on matters outside the terms of reference of the Commission.
The day-to-day working of the Refreshment Department, as with that of other Departments of the House, is a matter for the head of that Department, but, in my view, the pay and conditions of staff compare favourably with those elsewhere in the public sector and outside. If the hon. Gentleman has particular cases to pursue, he ought to pursue them with the head of the Refreshment Department—as I know that he has in an individual case—or with the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee.

Mr. Boyes: Will the hon. Member accept that, particularly at Christmas time, the Members' kiosk has very long queues and that the staff work exceptionally

hard for what is not satisfactory, but highly unsatisfactory, pay? Will he consider whether, at times such as Christmas, those members of staff ought to go on to a commission basis, as well as receiving their wages?

Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the staff in the kiosk worked extremely hard for hon. Members during that busy period before Christmas. The provision of the kiosk is a matter for the Services Committee. I shall see that all concerned are aware of the hon. Gentleman's representations.

Scottish Affairs Committee

Mr. Allen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the most up-to-date figure available to him for the total expenditure on staffing, pensions and related matters incurred since the beginning of the current Session in connection with the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Mr. Beith: No expenditure has been incurred since the beginning of this Session specifically in connection with the Scottish Affairs Committee. Staff in the Department: of the Clerk of the House are available for a wide range of duties, not just the service of particular Committees.

Mr. Allen: The staffing arrangements have continued despite the fact that the Select Committee system has not been set up for six months, and the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has still not been set up. Costs must be incurred for those people, not just for the six months, but for the remaining five years of this Parliament. Leaving aside the obscenity of the fact that Scottish colleagues do not have a Select Committee of their own, which they should, will the hon. Gentleman take away the consideration that he has the right to report to the House and make representations to the Leader of the House on the fact that more than £1 million has been wasted on the Select Committee system? Will the hon. Gentleman bring back a report from the House of Commons Commission as soon as possible?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman asked about the Scottish Affairs Committee. The two members of staff who were provisionally allocated to work for it are now working for other Committees. Should the Committee subsequently be set up, it will be the responsibility of the head of the Department concerned to ensure that staff are made available for its work.

Mr. Heffer: Is there likely to be consideration of a reversal of the position whereby subcontractors are brought in for cleaning the House, and so on, when those who used to work for the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That subject would have come more happily under the first question. This question is about the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Mr. Heffer: I did try.

Souvenir Kiosk

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what were the takings of the House of Commons kiosk in (a) the four weeks to Christmas 1987 and (b) for the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Charles Irving (The Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee): I have been asked to reply.
The takings of the House of Commons kiosk in the four weeks to Christmas 1987 were £183,620; the equivalent figure for takings in the calendar year to Christmas 1987 was £525,796. The kiosk did not, of course, operate during the period when the House was dissolved for the general election. Both figures include VAT at 15 per cent. We hope that we will have another record year at the end of this financial year.

Mr. Greenway: May I congratulate my hon. Friend and all those concerned upon those excellent and amazing figures and ask whether the staff will get bonus payments? May I also thank him and his Committee for introducing fudge to the House of Commons during the past year, but may I ask why it costs £2·50 a tin, whereas down the road one can buy the same quantity for only £1? Why is House of Commons fudge so expensive?

Mr. Irving: My hon. Friend, who is an expert at fudge, will realise that there is a vast difference between quality and quantity.

Mr. Dalyell: Would it be a good idea to put The House Magazine on sale at the kiosk? What is the position of The House Magazine, which carries the imprimatur of the coat of arms of Parliament? Is it purely a private enterprise venture? May we know who financed the pulping of a whole issue of the magazine and why a whole issue—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is the responsibility of the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee, although it was in order to ask him whether the magazine should be put on sale in the kiosk.

Ten-Minute Bills

Mr. Hanley: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will table a motion for the appointment of a Procedure Committee to consider moving the allotted time for the introduction of ten-minute rule Bills to the end of a day's business; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): No, Sir, but consideration of any such specific proposal would be within the remit of a Procedure Committee with general terms of reference.
The ten-minute rule Bill procedure is an important way whereby a Back Bencher can draw the attention of the House to a matter to which he attaches particular importance. From this point of view, transferring the procedure to the end of business would rob it of some of its value.

Mr. Hanley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that public business at the start of our proceedings is too often delayed by the over-indulgence of hon. Member's raising bogus points of order? Would it not be more appropriate to have it just before the Adjournment debate, as was done during the Session of 1966–67?

Mr. Wakeham: The question of points of order is a slightly different matter, and it is not one for me. I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the present timing of ten-minute Bills. However, it is something that the Procedure Committee could look at.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, produced a report before the summer recess that

dealt with all these issues in detail and made a number of recommendations? Is it not true that the reason why that report was not brought before the House was that the Leader of the House was worried that if the Protection of Official Information Bill that we debated last Friday had gone through, the proposals in our report, if carried by the House, would have meant that the House would have had more time on Report to deal with amendments to the Bill and that that would have secured its passage? Now that that Bill is out of the way, why does the right hon. Gentleman not bring that report forward this week—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does this question have anything to do with ten-minute Bills?

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend took 10 minutes to ask it.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is chasing a hare —this matter has little to do with ten-minute Bills. With regard to Procedure Committee reports, I have reported to the House that I have proposals as to how best to deal with these matters. I am having discussions with the usual channels and I hope to make progress soon.

Dr. Glyn: When the Procedure Committee sits, will my right hon. Friend ask it to consider recommending the reintroduction of the 10-minute limit on speeches? As he knows, in 1979 and 1984 the House agreed to limit speeches to 10 minutes—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The subject is ten-minute Bills rather than speeches. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about 10-minute speeches.

Mr. Wakeham: This is certainly a matter to which we attach importance, and we want to get on with it as soon as possible.

Select Committees

Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy to review the operation of Select Committees at the end of the current Session; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: Since the establishment of the present Select Committee system in 1979, the Liaison Committee has made periodic reports to the House on the operation of Select Committees. In so far as they are House bodies, this would seem to be the appropriate form of review.

Mr. Allen: Does the Leader of the House have any further comment to make, given that on Friday many of his colleagues were drawing attention to the ever-powerful Executive versus Parliament? Is he aware that the six-months delay in setting up Select Committees aided and abetted his colleagues on Friday in arguing for a stronger Parliament? Will he bring forward a report to ensure that the teeth of the Select Committees are sharpened so that we can hold the Government to account?

Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir. I have no proposals to bring forward a report. It is a matter that the Liaison Committee could consider, and we shall be interested in anything that it says.

Mr. Gow: Has my right hon. Friend considered the relationship between members of Select Committees and those of Standing Committees? Is my right hon. Friend


aware that many hon. Members are members of Select Committees and of the two Standing Committees, which are all meeting at the same time?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that, from time to time, this causes considerable difficulties, and my admiration goes to those hon. Members who manage to do a great deal of work. This is more a matter for the Committee of Selection than for me.

Mr. Wigley: The difficulties that have been experienced in the past six months could have been avoided if the Select Committees on Scottish Affairs in particular, and that on Welsh Affairs, had reflected a balance of membership from Scotland and Wales, and not from the balance of the House. As reports must eventually come to the Floor of the House, cannot the House be flexible enough to adopt that approach?

Mr. Wakeham: I am all for flexibility in these matters, but unless Select Committees reflect the broad balance of opinion within the House they will not be acceptable to it. I believe that that is the right principle for all Select Committees.

All-Party Groups

Mr. Adley: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will propose to the House rules to require that the membership of all-party groups conforms to that nomenclature; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: Towards the end of the previous Parliament the Services Committee instructed the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee to

investigate and report on the desirability of introducing new rules to regulate the formation, constitution and proceedings of all-party groups. This investigation was cut short by the general election, but I understand that the new Sub-Committee intends to re-examine the matter shortly.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I am talking about groups of parliamentarians and not outside groups? Does he agree that a group of parliamentarians that includes no Members of the Labour party, the Liberal party, the Social Democratic party, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru cannot call itself an all-party group, and that were it to do so it would be likely to be in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend that an all-party group should be what it claims to be. That was the only stipulation made by the Services Committee in its 1984 report. These are exactly the matters which the Sub-Committee will be considering.

Mr. Dobson: May I express the hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that a number of purportedly al-party groups that apply themselves to South africa and Namibia are genuinely all-party? When I last examined their composition it seemed that all the parties that they claim to represent are the parties to which Mr. Botha belongs.

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure whether that is a correct analysis. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have some constructive part to play in the discussions that will take place with a view to ensuring that all-party groups command the general respect of the House.

Points of Order

Mrs. Llin Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to use your influence with the Prime Minister and ask her to change her mind and to meet the parents and children—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. If the hon. Lady is called tomorrow during Prime Minister's Question Time, she can put the question directly to the Prime Minister.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give advice, Mr. Speaker, about the way in which constituents can redress their grievances? A large group of parents, with their children, are proceeding to 10 Downing street to present a petition. They are concerned over the delay in their children being admitted to the Birmingham children's hospital—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What possible point of order arises from what the hon. Gentleman has said? The issue to which he is referring is not a matter of order. There are other opportunities to raise such matters, opportunities that do not involve me.

Mr. Tam Dalyell:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter that I wish to raise arises from Question 28. You, Mr. Speaker, are involved indirectly through the learned Clerk of the House, who is a member of the advisory board of The House Magazine. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to clarify the status of The House Magazine. It carries the imprimatur of Parliament yet we are told that it is a private venture. If private ventures carry the arms of the Houses of Parliament, the Houses of Parliament, directly or indirectly, are involved. Indeed, another member of the advisory board is the Librarian. There is some relationship between the House and The House Magazine.
I am concerned about the finances and other matters arising from a decision of the editor of The House Magazine, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), whom I am glad to see in his place, to pulp the pre-Christmas edition of The House Magazine. The decision was taken off his own bat for the ostensible reason that a review sought from a professor of journalism who is a regular contributor to The Times, contained references to certain assertions that appear on page 196 of a book written by Peter Jenkins. It is on that page that Mr. Jenkins asserts that a telephone conversation took place between two—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a point of order for me?

Mr. Dalyell: How can it be that reference to a telephone conversation between Sir Brian Hayes, Grand Companion of the Bath—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into too much detail. Unlike some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on both sides of the House, I am not on the editorial board of The House Magazine. If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer to his questions, he should table a question to the Leader of the House, who doubtless will be briefed to answer it. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's questions.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for

Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has sought to pursue this matter in several ways. He has had the full facts explained to him. It is a well-known fact that The House Magazine was founded some 10 years ago. I understand—I was not associated with The House Magazine at the time—that permission for the magazine to bear the portcullis was given properly by the Services Committee and endorsed by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker. Its editorial policy, which is strictly non-party political, is supervised by Members of all parties in both Houses, and by senior Officers of the House. The magazine seeks to give information and provide a little entertainment, not to indulge in party-political polemics.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the matter can be taken any further.

Mr. Graham Allen: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that I do not think that we can take the matter any further, because it is not a matter of order for me. The hon. Member has heard what has been said.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If there is a publication in the House that bears the portcullis—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that we could not take this matter any further. It is not a matter of order and not a matter for me.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the five motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1987, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (Electoral Scheme) (Variation) Order 1988, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1987, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1987, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Ports (Finance) Act 1985 (Increase of Grants Limit) Order 1988, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[ Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Skinner: It is a cover-up.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members cannot pursue a matter that has nothing to do with me and nothing to do with a point of order.

Mr. Skinner: It is a cover-up. Who did the shredding?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must sit down when I am on my feet. The hon. Member must pursue this matter in a proper parliamentary way, by tabling a definitive question to the Leader of the House, or find some other method.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Provided it has nothing to do with this matter.

Mr. Winnick: You have said that there will be a debate tomorrow on the National Health Service. The people who are here now, and there has been a lot—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot add any more to what I have said. This is not a matter of order. The hon. Member must seek to take part in tomorrow's debate. I hope that he will be fortunate.

Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Australia (Bicentennial Gift)

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commoms (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that, to mark the Bicentenary in 1988 of the first European settlement of Australia and the opening of the new Parliament House in Canberra, a gift of a Vice-Regal Chair be made, on behalf of both Houses of Parliament, to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Who will take the chair?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not shout across the Chamber. If he is called, he can make his comments, but he should not do so from a sedentary position.

Mr. Wakeham: To mark the bicentennial of the first European settlement in Australia, I am happy to move this motion to seek the House's authorisation for a joint gift from this House and another place of a vice-regal chair to the Australian Parliament. The chair will stand in the Senate Chamber of the new Parliament in Canberra, which will be opened this year as one of the major national projects commemorating the bicentenary.
The chair will be a fitting symbol of the common ties between Australia and this country. These links have now lasted 200 years, and I am sure the House will join me in sending the heartiest congratulations to the Parliament and people of Australia on this occasion. We hope that our close relationship will last for many years to come.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I join the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons in supporting this proposal to mark what is described in the motion as the 200th anniversary of
the first European settlement of Australia.
It is an event that scarcely resounds to the credit of the House, involving as it did the House 200 years ago sanctioning the carrying away of British citizens in the most degrading circumstances and dumping them in Australia. It led to the destruction of the way of life arid many of the lives of the original inhabitants.
Having observed these occasions previously, I may say that there is always a touch of the patronising about our relationships with Commonwealth Parliaments; in particular, hon. Members frequently misquote a reference to this place being the mother of parliaments. What was actually said was "England — mother of Parliaments", and I am glad to say that we all salute Australia as the mother of the Australian Parliament. In many ways, Australia's democratic development ran ahead of our own in terms of the people who were allowed to vote, and we always welcomed the support that the Australian labour movement gave to the development of democracy in this country.
In any case, what we are doing today is only a reciprocal gesture to the Commonwealth of Australia, because you, Mr. Speaker, are today sitting in a Chair which was the gift of the Commonwealth of Australia when this Chamber was rebuilt at the end of the second world war. So I am sure that all my hon. Friends join me in wishing Australia well.
For people of my generation there is always a sort of ambivalence towards Australia. My first thought of Australia was of men dressed in peculiar green caps, led by a man called Bradman, who let loose two men called Lindwall and Miller on the England cricket team. Since then most of us have come to recognise that Australia has made a substantial contribution not only to sport but to art and literature — and, more latterly, to the task of making people the world over laugh at themselves and others.
We wish the people of Australia well. We hope that all the people of Australia will benefit from the renewal of the Australian Commonwealth, including the aboriginal people who have not done well. On a personal note, may I add that my best wishes to all the people of Australia will be made that much more sincere by the knowledge that Mr. Rupert Murdoch is now an American citizen.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: While endorsing part of what my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has said, I do not think we should allow this occasion to pass, or this gift go to Australia, without concerning ourselves with the rights of the aboriginal people. Recently, a Minister quite rightly made public representations about the position of the Palestinian people, pointing out their plight in Israel—or Palestine. We have a responsibility on this occasion to concern ourselves with the rights of the aboriginal people.
After all, it was the British who entered Botany bay and established the penal servitude colonies, and it is the British who have a responsibility for this issue. Before the House agrees to a bicentennial gift of a vice-regal chair for the Australian Commonwealth, we should agree that the humble Address to Her Majesty should include a reference to the position of the Australian aborigine people, and that that message should be conveyed to them from this House.
The House must be aware of the tensions that have been created among the aboriginal people by the bicentennial celebrations. Some of them believe they should be granted the right of self-determination. That is a demand that cannot and should not be ignored. Professor Reynolds, a professor of history at the university of Townsville, Queensland, has written several books on the position of the aborigines. In his third book, "The Law of the Land", he describes how, when South Australia was settled in the 1830s, the Colonial Office instructed that the aborigines should be compensated for the loss of land that had been taken from them and occupied. That has never happened. The present Government of Australia —[Interruption.] What I am saying is important to a group of people in the world who are fighting for their rights, and we have a responsibility because we are about to send a gift. If hon. Members show lack of interest, that will be conveyed to the people of Australia.
Although the Government of Australia announced in December that they would provide the first legal acknowledgement of aborigine prior land ownership and disfranchisement, it will be only a preamble to the Bill and not the treaty for which the aborigines have asked. Professor Reynolds quotes a Western Australian pioneer of the 1880s who warned his fellow colonialists:
Think not that the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia"—
and as a Christian he made this point—

offspring of the same parent with yourselves and partakers of all the kindred feelings of a common humanity — can resign the mountains and the seas, the rivers and the lakes, the plains and the wilds of their uncradled infancy, and the habitation of their fathers for generations immemorial to a foreign foe, without the bitterness of grief.
The House should be aware of the feelings of the aboriginal people. That feeling was expressed most graphically when the Pope visited Alice Springs in December 1986. After meeting the aboriginal peoples the Pope said that it was "legal fiction" by the original settlers to say that the land occupied was nobody's country. He quoted an Australian clergyman who pleaded at that time for the rights of the aboriginal inhabitants,
to keep the traditional lands on which their whole society depended.
The Pope said,
The Church still supports you today.
This House, which has as much responsibility as anybody for what happened in Australia, should also say to the aboriginal people, "Yes, we support you today in your rights and in the rights for which you are asking about your land." Our people colonised Australia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, it was our convicts who were sent there. We created the penal colonies.
It should be remembered that the aboriginal people have been living in Australia for at least 40,000 years. Archaeological evidence now suggests that it is more like 100,000 years. Before we went to Australia there were 600 Australian nations, all with languages of their own, and with approximately 300,000 to 400,000 people. After the loss of the British colonies in north America, we turned in 1788 to Australia.
I urge the House to write in a message of support for these people. In the past the Colonial Office did that. Perhaps it was only for a short period, but it did so. It is anticipated that on 26 January, Australia day, 30,000 aboriginal people will converge on Sydney. It is expected that it will be the biggest aboriginal demonstration in Australia's history. I ask the House to send a friendly word to those people because, to a large extent, we have been responsible for their plight. Unless I can get an assurance from the Government that they will do that when this gift is sent from the House, I shall ask the House not to agree to send the gift.

Mr. Richard Holt: When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House rose to speak, I had not intended to intervene, but as the Member in whose constituency Captain Cook was born, schooled and raised, I draw attention to the fact that the 200th anniversary is intended as a joyous occasion. Until the last few remarks, it has been, with parties in Australia and around the world. Any Australian who wants to come to the constituency of Captain Cook's birth this year will be made most welcome by my constituents. They send their good wishes with the chair to the people of Australia. We look forward to the 300th, 400th and 500th anniversaries. They should always remember, "Come back to Langbaurgh in between times."

Mr. Tony Banks: I welcome the sending of a gift to Australia to mark the 200th anniversary. I suppose that whoever is chosen from the House to deliver the chair will not be travelling in steerage


class, in the same way that the convicts and people who were sent to Australia, did. Many were not, according to our interpretation today, convicts; they were just victims of that nasty class system that prevailed in the 18th and 19th centuries and still exists today. Following what the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said, I make the point that there is a certain arrogance in us acting as if Captain Cook discovered Australia. He went there 200 years ago and found a country that aborigines had been living in, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, for 40,000 years.
If the humble Address is also to be sent, I hope that it will include a protest on behalf of many animal lovers at the cruel slaughter of kangaroos and horses. [Interruption.] Hon. Members might sneer, but many people are concerned about the inhumane treatment of kangaroos and elephants in Australia, shot by people leaning out of helicopters. If we are to send any form of humble Address with the chair, we should send, on behalf of all animal lovers, a protest and hope that the Australians will take a more civilised attitude to the wildlife they are fortunate to have in that great country.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The House of Commons should be discriminating about exactly what we celebrate. I declare something of a personal interest, in that there are many more people of my name in the Sydney and Melbourne telephone books than in the telephone books of Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is because many Scots, including some of my family, were despatched to Australia for dissent. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has put a serious case about the treatment of aborigines. Many people were sent to Australia against their will from these islands, and they would find it odd that 200 years later the democratically elected House of Commons is sending the gift and address.
At the end of the first world war, a distinguished Australian, Dr. Elsie Dalywell, was the greatest expert on rickets. She came here with the ANZAC forces and told my parents about the history of our family who arrived in Australia. It was not only uncomfortable but there was a good deal of oppression. Anybody who has followed the writings of Professor Kenneth Cable and others will know that what I am saying is historically correct. There is a serious question about whether the House of Commons should be celebrating the 200th anniversary, because of what happened to our people who were sent to Australia and what happened to the aborigines. Let us celebrate those things that ought to be celebrated and be a bit careful about what we are doing.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I want to know who will take the gift. Will you, Mr. Speaker, be selecting the people who take the humble Address and the chair? Will it be the usual channels? Will any of those 20 rebels who voted against the Tory establishment on Friday be selected, or have they lost their opportunity? Has the Chief Whip already decided that they have no chance? Will the

humble Address be taken when there is a test match on? If there is to be a Liberal or somebody from the alliance, who will pick that person? Will that person come from the provisional wing, from the official wing or from the merged party, if they achieve a merged party? Will the selection be delayed until the Liberals and SDP have sorted themselves out?
May I make one last plea? Do not put me on the list — and, for God's sake, do not send Sir Robert Armstrong.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Heffer: What about a reply to the debate?

Mr. Speaker: I am putting the Question.
The House proceeded to a Division

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—when I manage to get this wretched hat on; I have not been to many operas recently. During the debate I inadvertently said that Australians were guilty of shooting elephants. I hasten to add that, as far as I am aware, there are no elephants in Australia. I promise that I have not been drinking large quantities of Foster's lager and that those elephants are neither pink, black, nor grey. Therefore, I wish to have the record duly corrected.

Mr. Speaker: I shall see that it is. Did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) wish to raise a point of order? I may have been somewhat hasty in putting the Question, and that may have bothered him.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to ask whether we could have a reply to some of the points that I raised with the Government. If—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again that I was somewhat hasty in putting the Question. I think that the right thing to do is to call the Division off and I call the Leader of the House to respond.

Mr. Wakeham: First I shall reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I understand that it is not intended that the gift should be presented formally by representatives of both Houses. Instead, it will take its place in the Parliament House along with several comparable gifts from other Commonwealth countries in time for the formal opening ceremony.
On the wider questions, hon. Gentlemen have made their points and I am sure that they will be read and noted by those concerned in the matter, but I cannot comment in substance on any of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that, to mark the Bicentenary in 1988 of the first European settlement of Australia and the opening of the new Parliament House in Canberra, a gift of a Vice-Regal Chair be made, on behalf of both Houses of Parliament, to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

St. Christopher and Nevis (Gift of Speaker's Chair and Desk)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a gift of a Speaker's Chair and Desk to the National Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
It is a tradition that this House offers a present, suitable for use in a legislative assembly, to the Parliaments of Commonwealth countries to mark their independence. I am happy to move this motion to give formal authorisation for such a gift. The present of a Speaker's chair and desk to the National Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis was agreed after consultation with the authorities there, and will soon be ready for presentation. It is hoped that, subject to the completion of the work, it will be on display to hon. Members in the Upper Waiting Hall early in March.
I commend this motion as an expression of the friendship and good will of this House to the National Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing the warmest good wishes for the future of the Parliament and people of those islands.

4 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson: Again, I join the Lord President in the wish to send a Speaker's chair and desk to the National Assembly of St. Kitts and Nevis. Again, too, it must be said that the first allegedly civilising effect of European involvement was the extermination of the original population who, for the sake of profit, were replaced by human slaves from Africa, a proposition endorsed time and again by the then undemocratic House of Commons.
As with the gift to Australia, there is also an element of reciprocation. When this House was rebuilt after its destruction during the second world war, we received from the Leeward Islands, of which St Kitts and Nevis formed part, a gift of oak lamp standards now to be seen in the two Lobbies.
St Kitts and Nevis is very small both in size and population—smaller than the Isle of Wight and with a population of 43,000 — but is is now an independent sovereign state and a member of the Commonwealth and the United Nations. It was Britain's first colony in the Caribbean, when the sugar islands were the jewel in the crown of every competing European coloniser and rip-off merchant. In 1667, St Kitts was described as the first and best earth ever to be inhabited by Englishmen in the Americas, and that attraction may still be vital in the future, which will depend increasingly on tourism.
I am sure that the whole House wishes the National Assembly and people of St Kitts and Nevis well. We wish them independence and prosperity, and freedom from the tempests that occasionally afflict the Leeward Islands. We also hope that their future independence will remain free from interventions by the US marines.

Mr. Toby Jessel: In supporting the motion, I ask that full account be taken of the feelings of the people of Nevis. As the population of that island is less than 10,000, it cannot easily be governed as an independent state and has therefore been joined with St Christopher, which has a larger population of some 30,000. Nevertheless, Nevis has its own Parliament building, recognised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and the Nevisians have a very strong sense of identity. They do not like to be too much dominated by St Kitts. The main political party in Nevis is concerned to enhance Nevisian autonomy.
I hope that those important points will be fully borne in mind in this important matter and that the feelings of the Nevisians will be taken fully into account.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the House wish to comment upon that? If not, I will put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a gift of a Speaker's Chair and Desk to the National Assembly of St Christopher and Nevis, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Ministers of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Hurd: This is the second time that much of the Bill before us has been debated by the House. With agreement on all sides, it proved possible, before the general election intervened, to enact the important provisions in the earlier Bill on serious fraud, and that was welcomed. After the election, we took two decisions—first, to reintroduce the rest of the Bill as soon as possible, and, secondly, to use the inevitable short delay to strengthen the Bill substantially. The new proposals in it illustrate the reinforcement since the general election of the priority that we give to action against crime.
I should like to concentrate today on the additions and improvements. The earlier Bill had completed its passage through this House after what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is not easily given to compliments, was moved to describe as a "model Committee stage", so it is perhaps natural that we should pay the closest attention today to the new material which has not been before the House before.
First, however, I should mention one thread which runs through both this Bill and its predecessor — the international dimension of crime. Improved travel links and communications have created dramatic opportunities for large-scale international crime, and we are still only at the start of coping with this. The criminal leaps across countries and continents while his pursuer still stumbles, argues and delays as he reaches a frontier or a different legal system. I was forcefully reminded of this during a recent visit to north Africa. Drug trafficking, fraud and terrorism are no longer local problems, if they ever were. They have to he tackled across frontiers.
The Bill responds to this reality in several ways. It reforms our antiquated laws on extradition. Among our friends, many regard Britain as a haven for criminals and that is a reputation that we must shake off. The single most significant impediment to extradition from this country is the requirement that the foreign state should provide in our courts evidence which would amount to a prima facie case for committal for trial, had the case been prosecuted here.

Mr. John Wheeler: I apologise for intervening at such an early stage, but my right hon. Friend has touched on the subject of extradition. I ask him to make some reference in his statement to the concern on both sides of the House that there are persons residing in the United Kingdom against whom grave allegations have been made in connection with war crimes. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some idea how those cases will be dealt with.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has intervened a little early. We have sought to see whether extradition could be part

of the answer to the problem that he has described, but so far we have concluded that it is not. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend touches on a matter that I have discussed with the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), chairman of the war crimes group, and his colleagues. It is a matter that the Government have studied and are still studying very carefully. It is too serious a matter for it to be allowed to drop, but I believe that more work is needed before we can decide whether and, if so, in what way the law needs to be changed. I therefore do not propose to bring forward a Government amendment to this Bill to deal with that matter. As the matter cannot be allowed to drop, I propose to let the House know before Report exactly how we intend to pursue the matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will be content with that for the time being.
Other countries, particularly, perhaps, our closest European partners, with different legal traditions but with standards of justice which are not inferior to our own, find the requirements of our extradition rules extremely difficult to meet. Therefore, the Bill contains powers to dispense selectively with the prima facie requirement. We have responded to proper concerns that that should not be done haphazardly and that there should be adequate safeguards for the fugitive.
During the passage of the earlier Bill, we agreed that extradition arrangements which dispense with the prima facie requirement should be subject to parliamentary approval. When the present Bill was in another place, the matter was raised quite strongly and further safeguards were added for the fugitive. He is now to have a statutory right to see the papers on which the extradition is based. There will be a statutory right to make representations to the Secretary of State and a guaranteed period of seven days in which to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State's order for his surrender.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Secretary of State will be aware that there has been much criticism of the legislation that has finally been passed through the Dublin Parliament on this score. Can he explain in what way the prima facie requirement that he has just outlined in this Bill differs from that which is now in force in the Irish Republic?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. We are proposing to remove from our legislation the prima facie agreement selectively in the way I have described. When I saw the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) in the Chamber, I thought it possible that he would intervene on this point. He will be aware, from what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, I think, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General have said, of the misgivings we have had about the form in which the Dail eventually passed its legislation. We are in the process of seeing how it works in practice. However, I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman will expect me at this stage to add to the comments that have already been made.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The Home Secretary will be aware that no British subject, or anyone else for that matter, can he committed for trial by a court in this country unless the prosecution has established a prima facie case against him. Will he explain why he believes that a lower standard should be applied to British subjects and foreign nationals committed for trial abroad? In other


words, will he explain why it will no longer be necessary for a prima facie case to be proved against them? I believe that that is inequitable.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made that point before. He is really assuming that the procedures and standards of justice in other countries with which we might make agreements which must be discussed in this House are in some way inferior to the procedures in this country; otherwise, his question would not arise.

Mr. Carlile: Not at all.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. and learned Gentleman had better pursue his point later.
I believe that, when the House agrees that standards of justice are of equal validity, it is reasonable to make arrangements to dispense with the prima facie rules. I am frankly not happy with the situation in which we give haven in this country to a number of people who are, to put it mildly, in serious trouble in countries with highly respected judicial systems simply because those countries are unable to frame their requests in language and terms that meet our present law. The hon. and learned Gentleman may be aware of the particular cases that I had in mind. The response to the case for safeguards which both he and his hon. Friends argued for, in this House when the earlier Bill was discussed; and in another place more recently, meets his concerns.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend, but we have not disposed of the matter concerning the recent legislation introduced in the Republic of Ireland. Some of that legislation depends upon reciprocal action by the British Government. May we accept that no proposals will be made to alter our extradition arrangements with the Republic of Ireland at least in the foreseeable future and within this Bill?

Mr. Hurd: I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made clear the difficulty that he sees in playing the part envisaged for him in the Dail's arrangements because, in his view, they do not meet our requirements satisfactorily. The question is how that legislation works in practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) would not dissent from the fact that it is very important that the back-to-back arrangements with the Republic of Ireland should work as smoothly as possible. That is in the interests of both Governments. We must see how that can be achieved now that the Irish Government have taken their line.
The impact of the Bill on international crime does not begin and end with extradition. Part VI provides for reciprocal arrangements to be made for the international enforcement of confiscation orders, thus ensuring that crime will not pay wherever the proceeds may be secreted or invested. Part III establishes new procedures for taking and receiving evidence from abroad.

Mr. John Gorst: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the issue of extradition, may I state that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) a moment ago did not go far enough in one respect because, as the Lord Chancellor said in another place, before the prima facie requirement is dispensed with

"there must be a mutual recognition … that the system of justice in the foreign state is sufficiently acceptable to enable this requirement … to be dispensed with." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 1987: Vol. 490, c. 114.] That begs the question of how it is decided that a foreign state has a system that is acceptable.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that I have found—and other hon. Members have found—the system of justice in Sweden to be totally unacceptable in the way in which it has handled not only a British national but, from the volume of correspondence, Swedish nationals. How will the process be arrived at when extradition matters are considered in future?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has kept me in touch with his views about the Swedish system arising from a particular case in which he has legitimately taken a strong interest. Obviously, any Home Secretary and his colleagues would form a view of that matter. However, during the passage of the earlier Bill, we agreed that extradition arrangements that dispensed with the prima facie agreement would be subject to parliamentary approval. That means that my hon. Friend and his colleagues in this and in another place would have to approve specific agreements and therefore the kind of misgivings—

Mr. Alex Carlile: Once?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed, that is right — once an agreement is made.
That opportunity is a reasonable way in which to allow parliamentary scrutiny of the proposal. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will not be too chauvinistic about this. This is very important. Possibly the hon. and learned Gentleman underestimates the sense of affront felt by some of our friends when they are told that only by surmounting a hurdle defined purely in English terms which they find remarkably difficult, even though their systems are not inferior to ours, will they receive into their jurisdiction people that they believe have committed serious crimes. They find that very patronising. It also works the other way. It makes it difficult for us to negotiate agreements with them to allow us to bring back into our jurisdiction people we want because they have committed serious crimes. I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has addressed himself to the serious background to the problem.
I want this country to set the pace in international agreements and action to grip international crime. I believe that this is an area in which strides have had to be made and are being made, partly because we have shown ourselves to be a Government enthusiastic for more effective co-operation in this area in the European Community and beyond. The Bill makes its own contribution in the ways that I have described.
Nearer to home, we have been increasingly anxious about the habitual carrying of knives in public. There has been a disastrous change in the street culture of our cities, which we simply have to reverse. In London, in the first half of 1987, robberies and street robberies involving sharp instruments increased by about 30 per cent. It is intolerable that, among an increasing proportion of our young people, the carrying of a knife should be regarded as normal. The police have represented to me forcefully that the present law on offensive weapons is too narrowly drawn. I am genuinely glad that the right hon. Member for


Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his colleagues have shared our desire to respond to that concern. This is not a party matter.
As a result of amendments made in another place, the Bill contains in clause 128 a new offence of possessing a bladed or sharply pointed article in a public place without good reason, together with the necessary associated police powers to stop and search. That is a substantially more wide-ranging offence than the law contains at present. It is in my view no more and no less than the circumstances demand. The old, the vulnerable, the whole of the law-abiding community must feel confident that it is safe to go out on the streets without being stabbed. It follows that we must use this Bill to restrict the carrying of knives.
Yes, we are reversing the onus of proof. Yes, I understand that this a serious step to take. My colleagues and I searched in vain for an answer that would cause less offence to legal opinion but still prove strong enough. I firmly commend this clause to the House.

Mr. Robert Hayward: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I wrote to him and to the Lord Chancellor a few weeks ago about the carrying of knives and sentencing policy. Sentencing policy is covered in clauses 33, 34 and 35. Is it not the case that those powers will be substantially undermined unless strong powers of sentencing are provided and used? Otherwise, the public will feel that the powers provided in the Bill are not worth the paper on which they are written.

Mr. Hurd: The police have raised that aspect of their powers to stop and search. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to deal with both those points, which deserve explanation. Having looked at both those powers—that of the police to stop and search, and the sentences available for the new offence of carrying a knife, but not the criminal use of it, which is a much more serious matter—one has to think carefully about the right level of penalty. My hon. Friend will explain the circumstances that were in our mind.

Mr. John Fraser: Has the Home Secretary considered putting a ban on the sale of lethal weapons through mail order in circumstances in which no one could contemplate those weapons used for anything other than aggressive purposes? I have taken soundings from the members of the Advertising Standards Authority, and if Parliament gives a lead on the matter the ASA will not have the slightest difficulty in banning advertisements for brutal and lethal weapons which anyone can obtain through the post.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member wrestles with serious incidents of that kind far too often in his constituency.
In the Bill, we are taking power to prohibit, not only through mail order but absolutely, the manufacture, importation and sale of certain other types of offensive weapons. Knives have many legitimate uses, and I cannot see the logic of forbidding the sale through mail order of knives which have legitimate uses. As for other weapons, such as knuckledusters, death stars and handclaws, which have no conceivable legitimate use, we intend to block their supply at all points, whether through manufacture, sale or advertisement.

Mr. John Morris: Leaving aside the sale of knives by mail order, or weapons such as knuckledusters, is the Minister aware that there is a general concern that,

apart from pocket knives, any child, however immature, can buy a large knife with impunity? How does he propose to use the regulations in clause 130 to limit at source the sale of such knives?

Mr. Hurd: We have thought hard about that. Many Governments have thought hard about it, and it is not easy. Many objects, including knives, have a perfectly legitimate use. In those circumstances, it is difficult to forbid their sale to particular categories of people, or through media such as mail order.
The Bill attempts to deal with the actual mischief, which is the carrying of such knives in a public place. For other offensive weapons for which there is no legitimate use, we propose to extend the list of those weapons and to clamp down on them in all their mainifestations. That is better than trying to establish, in every small corner shop, a system of licensing and control under which customers can buy a knife. There would be difficulties about the administrative complications of such a system. However, that point will rightly be argued in Committee and I have set out the conclusions that we believe are sensible.
At the heart of the Bill is a set of proposals for strengthening the procedures of justice. I would include in that category the abolition of peremptory challenge, a modest but important move to make people between the ages of 65 and 70 eligible for jury service, and the ex tension to other profitable offences of the scheme for confiscation of the proceeds of crime, which is already making its mark in drug trafficking cases. I shall forbear to rehearse my strong views on peremptory challenge, which certainly would bring the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery to his feet again. I expect that we shall hear from him on that point. I am encouraged by the readiness of their Lordships in another place to accept the reasonable proposition that we put to the House in the former Bill, which is repeated in this Bill.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that opinion was expressed not only in the other place but in the House on 31 March 1987? On Report, the House carried by 176 votes to 69 — a majority of more than two and a half to one — the abolition of peremptory challenge, an end desired by all sensible people except criminals, some lawyers and those on the extreme Left who have a temperamental liking for guilty people to be acquitted.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is leading with his chin. I acknowledge that he has been a robust pioneer of that argument. I agree with his conclusions.
I shall concentrate on two aspects in which the Bill has been significantly strengthened. During the past few years, we have had many debates on how to deal with the occasional sentence that is too lenient. That is not a problem which has been raised by the Government for their own purposes. Unduly lenient sentences are few and far between. In the vast majority of cases—far more cases than the casual reader of newspapers would suppose —judges impose sentences which are in tune with what the public expect. In cases of serious crime, they have been steadily increasing the severity of their sentences. That is right and natural.
However, when a manifestly over-lenient sentence is passed, the damage to public confidence in the system is out of all proportion to the significance of the case. That is why the problem, though small in scale, is of great


importance, and that is why we have been grappling with it so vigorously during the past three years. Both Houses of Parliament have had difficulties with that problem.
In the earlier Bill, we proposed that in such cases the Attorney-General should be able to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal for its opinion, but without the offender being at risk of being dealt with more severely. The Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), defended that proposal brilliantly in the House, and there was much more to be said for it than has generally been supposed. However, as compromises often are, it was poorly received.
Clause 34 contains a similar proposal, but with the vital difference that the Court of Appeal should be able to increase the sentence, if it thought it right to do so. That is a stronger proposal, both in effect and in logic. If a mistake has been made, it is clearly sensible that there should be a way in which it can be put right, not if the newspaper or if the Attorney-General want to do so, but if the Court of Appeal decides that it is right to do so.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents thought it quite inadequate that someone should not have his sentence increased if that was found to be desirable? They are grateful to him for changing the Bill so that that can now be done.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has followed this long and occasionally weary argument right through. I am glad that she is pleased with our conclusions.
The second procedural change to which I would draw the House's attention can be found in clause 41. At present the Court of Appeal can order that a case be tried again only in strictly limited circumstances, where new evidence has come to light. There is a strong case for a wider power to order a retrial — where, for example, a conviction would otherwise have to be quashed on a pure technicality, but the more just course would be for the matter to be tried again. The Bill therefore allows the court to order a retrial whenever it thinks it would be in the interests of justice to do so.
Perhaps at this point I should make a point about the right of silence.

Dr. Alan Glyn: There is a great deal of concern in the country that, when the driver of a motor vehicle kills somebody, there appears to be no machinery, even in this Bill, by which he can be charged with manslaughter if that is appropriate.

Mr. Hurd: It is for the prosecuting authorities, and particularly the Crown prosecution service, to decide on the appropriate charge. That is not always an easy task, especially in the circumstances that my hon. Friend has in mind. There is a wide choice available, and it must be for the independent prosecution service to decide what charges should be made. It will have regard to the evidence before it and what it thinks might succeed.
I deliberately provoked a discussion, beginning with a lecture to the Police Foundation in July, not on the right to silence, but on a recommendation made by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1972. The question in my mind is not whether a suspected or accused person should have a right to remain silent throughout investigation and

trial—he has that right and should continue to have it—but whether, when an accused person ambushes the prosecution by producing at his trial a line of defence which he has not previously mentioned to the police, the court should be precluded from drawing reasonable inferences.
I have listened carefully to the lively discussion that has followed that lecture. I am not convinced by the arguments in favour of continuing the right to ambush. The case for change is strong. I am also persuaded by some of the detailed points that have been made that more careful work must be done if there is to be change. This long and detailed Bill is not, I believe, the place for the provisions that would be needed.
I shall give the House particulars of the further work which I believe is necessary before the Bill leaves the House so that it has an opportunity to judge.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I am interested in the Home Secretary's expression. He said that, before the Bill leaves the House, he will give it particulars of his work. Does he mean that he proposes an amendment on Report?

Mr. Hurd: No, I do not propose an amendment on Report. I do not believe that this or any other long and detailed Bill is the place for the provisions that would be needed. Further work is needed. I have given the House an idea of the direction in which my mind is moving. I believe that the case for the right to ambush as it stands at present is not made out, but I also believe, in view of some of the points that have been made to me by people of many different strands of opinion, that, before the Home Secretary can tell the House that a certain change is the right one, we need some further work. I shall let the House know before the Bill leaves the House how I believe that work should be set in hand.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, before the Bill leaves the House, he will tell us what work is to be done and what measures he wishes to achieve, or will he take the more appropriate course and have a period of consultation during which formal representations can be made?

Mr. Hurd: In effect, there will be both. I have had a good many formal and informal expressions of opinion from the Law Society and other legal bodies. When the work that I have in mind proceeds, those representations will continue. I am saying that there will not be an amendment to the Bill on the subject. I have told the House the line along which my mind is moving and I shall give further details of the work that I intend to set in hand.
One of the Bill's main aims is to improve the circumstances of victims of crime. It contains measures to encourage the courts to use compensation orders in a wider range of cases. It creates, for the first time, a statutory right to compensation, under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, for the victims of violent crime.
The group of victims who command greatest sympathy are probably children who suffer physical or sexual assault. That has been imprinted on our minds recently by a string of cases. I do not think that any hon. Member can read accounts of those cases without horror. Revulsion at the victimisation of children leads to a determination to do whatever we can to tackle it. We all feel that. It is true that


legislation has only a limited part to play, but there are measures in the Bill which deal with this problem to which I should like to draw attention.
Clause 43 increases the maximum penalty for child cruelty or neglect from two years' imprisonment. When a child is assaulted, more serious charges will normally be brought, but we noticed fairly recently — perhaps it should have been noticed before — that cruelty and neglect can take many forms other than assault, such as starvation, and two years seems to us wholly inadequate in the worst cases. We therefore propose to substitute a maximum of 10 years.
Clause 30 would make it possible for a young child to give evidence by closed-circuit television in cases of violence or sexual assault. This was widely welcomed when the Bill came to the House before the election. For a young child to give evidence in a busy Crown court, perhaps in the presence of somebody who has cruelly assaulted him, must be a tremendous ordeal. The ability to give evidence from outside the court room should help to lessen the ordeal. It should he a humane step forward.
Clause 32 abolishes the strict requirement that the unsworn evidence of a child must invariably be corroborated. This is new. I made the proposal believing that it might he challenged but, on the whole, I have been reassured by the welcome that it has received. There is no evidence to suggest that children are inherently less reliable as witnesses than adults.
We intend to bring forward an amendment in Committee to make it an offence to possess indecent photographs of children. Child pornography victimises the children who are exploited by it, and I am afraid that it feeds the instincts which give rise to sexual abuse. It is already an offence to take, show or distribute indecent photographs. We are persuaded that it would be justified to criminalise simple possession in the hope of stamping out this degrading trade.
I should like to mention two other changes—one which we have already made, and one which we plan to make in Committee. Clause 118 creates a single custodial sentence for young offenders, to be known as detention in a young offender institution. It is strongly favoured by the Magistrates Association. It allows more effective use of the available accommodation, which is a crying need, and it is an idea whose time has come. We have made it clear that young offenders who have relatively short periods to serve after sentence will experience the brisk, structured regime which has been developed in detention centres.
I think that the Opposition know that we shall bring forward in Committee an amendment to provide a statutory right to compensation for those who have been wrongly convicted. We already comply with the spirit of our international obligations in non-statutory arrangements which have been outlined to the House previously. During debates in another place, we agreed to put those obligations on a statutory footing, and we intend to do so. As now, compensation will be payable when some new fact has emerged and when the normal working of the judicial system has not revealed the wrongful conviction.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I warmly welcome the single sentence, but am I to understand that it is to take the same form as that which we experienced heretofore in detention centres— a sentence which was used less and less by magistrates courts because of

allegations about what happened in detention centres and the fact that it seemed to do the children involved little good?

Mr. Hurd: The proposal that we have made in the Bill has been warmly welcomed by the Magistrates Association. What I said was that, where a relatively short sentence is to be served, the regime will include the brisk, structured arrangements developed successfully in the detention centres.

Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having given way to me twice. I, too, welcome the concept of the single sentence. However, may I take my right hon. Friend back to the penalty for possession of indecent photographs and other material concerning juveniles and children? Will he consider extending that penalty to make such possession an arrestable offence, which I believe would be particularly welcome?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Minister of State may have something to say about that when he winds up the debate. In any event, I shall consider it and write to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler).
I am grateful for the spirit of the interventions that have been made so far. On occasions such as this, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) used to cast around for reasons to justify the fact that his party would vote against reasonable proposals. It sometimes seemed a matter of mere chance whether he would have thought of our proposals first, whether they were the most tyrannical proposals that anyone had ever put forward, or whether they were completely irrelevant to the real needs of the situation. I could write a tasteful anthology of the orations that he produced, but I hope that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will show a little more imagination.
I would not dream of claiming that any single measure could be the answer to crime, but that is really not an argument against single measures that contribute to such an answer. We must act on a wide front. We have in hand a programme of crime prevention on an unprecedented scale, with several new initiatives which we are hatching this spring. We are engaged in a substantial expansion of police strength. We have carried out a series of legislative reforms, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986 and the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. But changing the law is only part of the picture. No change in the law was required to establish 42,000 neighbourhood watch schemes, to create 8,500 places on crime prevention projects under the community programme or to expand the police by nearly 19,000 officers and civilians since 1979.
The Bill is not — and could not be—a cure-all. However, it fits firmly within our general strategy. We have used the time created by the election to fashion a stronger and more complete measure. Across the broad sweep that I have described this afternoon — international crime, safer streets, the procedures of justice, children as victims and several other matters—the Bill reforms and strengthens. I believe that it will buttress the ramparts of the criminal justice system, and reinforce the protection of the citizen and his family. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, by proposing changes in the law governing extradition, the selection of juries, remand and sentencing, would result in a substantial reduction in civil liberties, yet fails to address the fundamental question of equal rights under the law and equal access to the process of justice.
It is nearly two years since the Government published the principal White Paper on which the Bill is primarily based. Since then, the unremitting increase in crime has continued. On a year-by-year basis, the latest figures show that violence against the person has increased by 8·6 per cent., robbery by 7·2 per cent. and theft by 3·4 per cent. Over the same time, the proposals in the principal White Paper have been changed, revised, increased and reduced, and all sorts of other ideas have been canvassed.
Let me begin by asking the Home Secretary about the matters that we might have expected to appear in the Bill—because he initiated debates, because others made off-the-record briefings to newspapers or even as a result of reading the principal White Paper and the secondary White Paper concerning discipline in prisons.
I want first to press the Home Secretary on the half-answer that he gave on what, until today, was called the right of silence. The right hon. Gentleman has rechristened it the ambushing of the prosecution. I take it from what he has told the House that not only will he not introduce amendments on the subject at any stage, but that the Government would not support amendments of the cruder sort, which I have no doubt will be presented in Committee. If the Home Secretary will give me an assurance on that, I shall rest content.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties. I realise why, having changed his mind on the subject, he must keep some of his Back Benchers optimistically believing that he will sooner or later change the law in this particular. However, I should like to ask about another subject, which has been canvassed not by the right hon. Gentleman introducing lectures, but by his Minister of State making a statement to yesterday's The Mail on Sunday at dictation speed, I assume that it came from the Minister of State—described in The Mail on Sunday as
Law and Order Minister John Patten"—
who, it said rather revealingly, had spent the last year tackling the symptoms of crime. That is certainly true: it is one of our charges against the Government. I assume that the statement was given to the newspaper by the Minister, because it portrays him as a combination of Elliot Ness and Dixon of Dock Green. That is a view that he may have of himself, but it is not widely shared in the House.
What the piece says — on, I believe, the Minister's authority — is that the Government are soon to introduce the electronic tag. That proposition is wrong in principle, and, on the evidence of the United States, farcical in application. Were we to be presented with such a proposition, I am advised that a change in the law would be needed. No such suggestion, however, appeared in today's Bill. Can we be told that this little bit of self-publicity does not represent Government policy, and that we can forget about that as well?
As I have said, I understand the Home Secretary's difficulties. Junior Ministers on the make normally cause

such difficulties. In my time, I had the leader of the Social Democratic party as my junior Minister, and, before that, the previous leader, which was even worse. But, if the Home Secretary will make the position clear, I do not think that any of us will wish to pursue it as if the Minister were a serious figure.
Other omissions, however, need to be pursued in rather more detail, particularly the omission of any of the proposals that appear in the second White Paper, on prison discipline. It was, I think, reasonable to assume that they would surface in the Bill. I doubt whether there will be another large Bill of this sort in the immediate future, but some of the matters that appeared in that second White Paper abut directly on the question of criminal justice. The loss of remission in a prison sentence is, in effect, the commitment to a prison sentence as long as some of those awarded by the courts. This is a matter of the administration of justice.
The White Paper on prison discipline recommended substantial changes in the way in which, for instance, remission was removed, recommending that the boards of visitors should lose their disciplinary function and that a new code of disciplinary offences should be created, and should be administered by a prison discipline tribunal. It is much to my regret that those matters have not appeared in the Bill, and I hope that the Home Secretary can tell us what are the prospects of that White Paper eventually finding legislative form and coming to the House.
Comparing the Bill to the principal White Paper on criminal justice, we see one of the reasons why the Government's record on crime and conviction is so deplorable. The Government vacillate over their policy. By comparing the White Paper with the Bill, we see both the nature of those vacillations and the cause of some of them. The White Paper, for instance, promised measures to enable less serious offenders to be dealt with effectively in the community. Yet we read in clause 139 that juveniles who have not carried out the specific activities provided under a supervision order may in future be committed to prison. That does not seem to me to be an attempt to fulfil the provisions and promises in the White Paper.
Similarly, the White Paper promised an efficient and effective court system. The Bill provides for the end of peremptory challenge for jurors, and for extradition procedures which deny people the rights which they would find available if they were tried in British courts. I want to return to this subject because the Home Secretary wholly missed the point made in the intervention from the Liberal Benches. Most important, the Bill provides for the Attorney-General, with the leader of the Court of Appeal, to refer cases to that court when he considers that the sentences are unduly lenient.
I want to deal with the unduly lenient provision, a wholly subjective matter upon which it is difficult for the Attorney-General or anyone else to make an objective and common judgment. I want to deal with the provision in some detail, for two reasons. I regard the proposal as wrong in principle. It seems to us wrong in principle that a man or woman, when convicted, should, in effect, risk the jeopardy of being sentenced twice and then be forced to serve whichever of the two sentences was the more severe. It also seems to us wrong in principle that there should be political influence and political pressure on sentencing. I know that the Home Secretary attempts to argue that the political influence will not be there, but I ask him to consider the reality of the proposal.
A particularly lurid crime will be committed, a tabloid newspaper will announce that the sentence is insufficient and then a campaign will be built up. There will be questions from the hon. Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). We can be assured that that will happen every time a tabloid newspaper says that an individual has been sentenced unduly generously. The newspaper campaign and the House of Commons campaign will build up so that, in the judgment of reasonable people considering the Government's behaviour over the past two years, it appears that the Prime Minister will not allow the Attorney-General to do anything other than appeal for a longer sentence.
That is the case because so much of what the Government now do about law and order and crime and punishment is intended not to reduce the incidence of crime or to convict the guilty, but to produce the right sort of headlines.

Mr. Hayward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way in a moment.
If I had any doubts about that, they would have been removed when the Home Secretary stated that this was not got up by the Government for their own purposes. I have never heard a more obvious expression of a guilty conscience than that. Before we had accused the Home Secretary of that crime, he was denying that the crime existed.

Mr. Roger Gale: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will know that this matter was discussed in great depth in Committee. Very strong arguments were given by lawyers on both sides for the right of the prosecution to challenge. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, if he supports the defence right of appeal against the sentence which is too harsh—as I assume he does — he does not also support the prosecution right of appeal against a sentence which some consider too lenient?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall repeat the two reasons that I have given. It is quite wrong that a man or woman should be required to serve the longer of two sentences imposed on them. It is wrong that the obviously political intrusion which this provides should be introduced into our legal system. It is wrong that the Attorney-General should be subject to the campaigns inside and outside this House. Those campaigns epitomise much of what is wrong with the Government's penal and judicial policy.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
This item has been introduced into the Bill for blatantly political reasons. It is concerned not with reducing crime, but with creating headlines. The Home Secretary said today that the courts award sentences which he regards as appropriate far more often than newspapers claim. The Earl of Caithness, speaking for the Government in the other place, said that unduly lenient sentences were few and far between.
There is no reason, based on the deterrence of crime and the conviction of the guilty, for justifying this clause. The clause is intended to enable Conservative Members to go back to their constituents and claim that the

Government are being tough on crime. That is wrong for several reasons, one of which I shall try to develop when I have given way.

Mr. Devlin: In spite of the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning, he has not answered the point about the equity of the situation. Is it not equitable that, if the defence can appeal, the prosecution should be able to appeal too? The right hon. Gentleman's arguments may be entirely reasonable, but I should be grateful if he would answer that point.

Mr. Hattersley: It is not double jeopardy for a defence to make a plea in mitigation and hope for a reduced sentence. The jeopardy is on the man or woman who is subject to what amounts to two sentences and must serve the longer of the two. The equity of that situation is obviously wrong.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difference between the prosecution and the defence and, indeed, between the judge and members of the public, is that the judge, unlike the prosecution, has often seen the contents of social inquiry and psychiatric reports and of other confidential documents? The contents of those documents may be reflected in the sentence, yet that information is not available to the prosecution or members of the press or the public.

Mr. Hattersley: I agree with my hon. Friend's point, and I go further. If we wish to change the system so that prosecution counsel become involved in suggestions about the length of sentence, we must go all the way and do what happens in other countries, where prosecution counsel have been known to suggest, after considering the reports to which my hon. Friend refers, that a long sentence would be inappropriate and a short sentence would be more correct. If we get that system, we shall get quite a different regime. The Government now have an opportunity to say that they are taking a tough line on specific crimes. That is deeply undesirable for several reasons.

Mr. Michael Irvine: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: Like the Home Secretary, I must go on, but I shall give way in a moment.
It is deeply desirable, for a number of reasons. By encouraging this idea that the fight against crime is conducted by headlines in newspapers, the Home Secretary is perpetuating the basic error which lies at the heart of the Government's failure to combat crime. That failure is in no small measure dependent on the atavistic belief that the best way, and perhaps the only way, to reduce crime is to increase the severity of the sentence.
The Home Secretary will have noticed that more than half the interventions from his hon. Friends on the Back Benches, or in the backwoods—whichever way he may like to describe them — concerned the severity of sentencing. By continually talking about the severity of sentences, as if it were the sovereign remedy for the increase in crime in this country, the real enemies are ignored, the causes are neglected and we simply attack the symptoms of the mounting crime wave. As a result of that, crime continues to increase.
Perhaps it is the necessity for the Home Secretary to introduce policies which have no merit other than to quieten the opinion on his Back Benches, which does an enormous amount of harm to the real drive against crime.


That weakness is inherent in all Conservative Home Secretaries. Lord Whitelaw thought it necessary to talk about the short, sharp shock before he introduced reforms. The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) decided to change the parole system on the eve of the Tory party conference, before he said some progressive things about other parts of the penal system.
The present Home Secretary, who has some radical and reasonable instincts—I say that gladly and willingly—finds it necessary to look continually both ways to placate the opinion behind him. That opinion will prevent those improvements which, given a free hand, he would want to carry out.

Mr. Irvine: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary is trying to look both ways in a fashion which can only be described as assuming Heseltine proportions. Last Friday, he told south-east London magistrates of his concern about the prison population, both sentenced prisoners and prisoners on remand.
The Home Secretary's concern, which I believe to be genuine, could have been reflected far more effectively in the Bill if he had chosen to reflect it in action. Let me give him some examples of what he could have done in the Bill to make his speech last Friday more of a reality. He could have speeded up the application of section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which requires trials all over England and Wales to be completed in a statutory time. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are some pilot schemes, but he could have speeded up that process a great deal.

Mr. Hurd: The power is already there in the legislation, and I hope to make an announcement to that effect fairly soon.

Mr. Hattersley: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, and wish that he had been that forthcoming without my pressing him on the subject.
Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. If, as he said on Friday to the south-east London magistrates, it is his wish that the remand population should be reduced, and if he is concerned, as he said he was, that the remand population has virtually doubled over the past eight years, how does he justify coming to the House three days later and introducing a Bill that allows defendants to be remanded in custody, not for eight days, but for 28 days at a spell? Those two things seem to be in conflict.
When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking to the magistrates last Friday he said that, as well as being concerned about remand, he was concerned about the use of custody in the sentencing of offenders. I have talked about juvenile sentencing, where the right hon. Gentleman is extending the possibility of custodial sentences. Before I talk about other areas where his proposals will have the same effects, in fairness, I should like to deal with the parts of the Bill that will reduce the prison population.
Clause 56 will reduce the length of prison sentences for unpaid fines. Clause 47 will limit the custodial sentences in police cells. Clause 126 will encourage the use of bail hostels. Clause 118 will create a new sentence of detention in a young offenders' institution. Those are four admirable

proposals. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman could have brought himself to mention more than one of them. I do not doubt that he would have been criticised for his moderation by Conservative Back Benchers, but if he is to get this right, he should stand up against those who believe that prison and prison sentences, especially longer prison sentences, are the only answer to the crime wave.
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he tries to stand up against unreason, he gets little thanks for compromising with those who think that prison is the only answer to the problems. He made an equivocatory speech on Friday and followed that with a Bill that did not support even the better parts of that speech. But then we read in The Daily Telegraph that Conservative Back-Benchers are angry at the complete reversal of the message that the Government ought to be sending out to potential offenders.
The Home Secretary should stick to the principles that he holds, rather than feel that he must constantly compromise between common sense and the 1922 Committee.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is not analysing my speech properly, but, as he is doing so, he will recognise that its philosophy is clear. I welcome—to some extent the Bill buttresses it — the increasing severity of sentences passed by the courts for serious and violent offences. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will dissent from that. If so, I should be grateful to know in what particular. That is one thing. It is quite another when one enters the boundary area, which we all know is difficult, where the court—not the House—has to decide whether prison is the right penalty for less serious offences. I was addressing that particular area at Bromley. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is addressed in parts of the Bill. There is no contradiction in that approach.

Mr. Hattersley: That is why I shall try to explain to the right hon. Gentleman why that contradiction exists, but before I do so, having begun to congratulate him on the parts of the Bill that are welcome and that we commend, I should like to mention two other areas where the Bill is more than worthy of support. The change of the status of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is right. In general, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal on knives is right. My only regret is that it was not included in the guns legislation. If it had been, the provision would have passed more speedily through the House.
With regard to knives, I have two reservations. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we—certainly I do — look upon the change in the onus of proof with great concern. I suspect that he shares my concern. I hope that he will endorse the view that, while the change in onus is justified in this extraordinary circumstance and these difficult conditions, nobody could think that that should be a precedent for change in onus in other directions.
The second area of concern is the stop-and-search provision. I hope and believe that as the police apply the new law governing knives, they will apply it with moderation that does not open up again all the old fears about sus and stop and search. I want tough powers against knives, as anybody who represents an inner-city constituency must want. For that reason, I propose to support the clause on that subject, allowing for my reservations on those two points. It is absolutely essential that in those two particulars the law is operated in a way


that does not stir up legitimate and widespread fears in the inner cities about its misuse rather than proper use and proper application.
Clause 118, which I also support and commend, aims at tightening the criteria against which courts measure their sentences, and thus attempts to encourage uniform sentencing. When he replies, will the Minister of State explain why that admirable provision applies to young offenders, and young offenders only?
Wide discrepancies in sentencing are wrong in every way — for example, in terms of natural justice. They make a considerable contribution to the overcrowding of prisons, which the Home Secretary rightly wants to bring to an end. Let me remind the House and the Minister of State of some of the figures. In Rotherham, 8·79 per cent. of defendants found guilty by magistrates courts are sent to prison. The figure is 34 per cent. in Plymouth, 32 per cent. in Blackpool and 28 per cent. in Brighton. Those discrepancies cannot be right. Therefore, I ask again why the Home Secretary does not use the Bill in an attempt to unify sentencing and reduce sentencing in general—not only for juveniles.
I believe—I suspect that the Home Secretary shares my view — that in the United Kingdom we send too many people to prison and we send many of them there for far too long. The Bill was an opportunity to rectify those mistakes. For example, it could have resuscitated the supervised release scheme of 1981, which the Opposition supported when the Home Secretary proposed it. It was lost during one of those conferences when law and order policy is made by delegates to the Conservatives' annual gathering. The Home Secretary missed the chance to reintroduce that provision and to introduce other provisions that could have reduced the prison population. I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman has done so without getting much credit for it from those whom he tried to placate.
The right hon. Gentleman will continue to be harried over the need for longer sentences. I fear that unless he stands up against that harrying he will continue to bow to that pressure and put into Bills such as this proposals which are wrong in every particular, but which are warmly welcomed in Tory party caucuses.
Let me give the right hon. Gentleman another example. The Bill provides a life sentence for carrying a firearm while committing a crime—

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Quite right.

Mr. Hattersley: As far as I can make out, nobody believes that it is "quite right" except a small proportion of Conservative Back Benchers.

Mr. Hind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to a small proportion of Tory Back Benchers.

Mr. Hind: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a small proportion of Conservative Back Benchers have a large amount of support among the general public on this matter?

Mr. Hattersley: There is no support among the police force—

Mr. Hind: That is not true—

Mr. Hattersley: Certainly not among the Police Federation. The federation is seeing me tomorrow on this and other subjects. It is absolutely clear on this

proposition, which is self-evident. If a man committing a crime carries a weapon, and if he is about to be arrested by an unarmed policeman, under the new provision, that man will know that he faces no greater penalty for shooting the policeman than for throwing his gun away. [Interruption.] I hope that if the Home Secretary were on a rooftop facing a gunman and he realised that the new law meant that the gunman could shoot him and incur no greater penalty than if he threw the gun over the side of the building, he, translated into policeman, would rationally think, "What a pity he did not leave the gun behind."
The Police Federation says that this proposal will put the police in extra jeopardy. The proposal is in the Bill to make the Government appear to be tough on crime; it is for no greater reason than that, which is a squalid and disreputable one.
So, too, is the reappearance of the removal of peremptory challenge to jurors. It is a requirement of a free and democratic society that the defence is able to protect its client from trial by a jury that it fears is prejudiced against its client. The inconvenience that it may cause to courts, the small delay that may result from peremptory challenge and the occasional miscarriage of justice that may result, do not do anything like the damage that is done to our democratic reputation by removing a provision that, in the United States, would be considered as an inherent part of a proper judicial system.
The same rule applies to the removal of the prima facie evidence that is required before extradition. The Home Secretary completely misunderstood the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who was not saying, in any chauvinistic way, that we must protect offenders in Britain against trial by incompetent courts of western Europe. As I understand it, the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying—I am certainly saying—that a man or woman who is to be tried in a court outside the United Kingdom should receive about the same protection and should go through the same procedures as he or she would receive if he or she were to he tried in a court in the United Kingdom.
The truth of the matter is that if somebody commits a crime covered by this clause at Madrid airport, and then commits the same crime at London airport, they will have to go through more complicated procedures before being tried in England than they would have to if they were tried in Spain. There will he no committal procedures as such because there will be no obligation to provide prima facie evidence.
Once more, this matter is being brought into the arena of political decision-making. I believed, perhaps naively, that the Conservative party had been spending a good deal of its time over the past five years saying that these great judicial questions should be kept out of the political arena as much as possible. Much of what the Home Secretary has done today brings these matters into the political arena. I regret that, not only because of its effect upon the Conservative party but because it is the wrong sort of constitutional progress.
Extradition without demonstration of a prima facie case is intolerable. It is generally irrelevant to the major fight against crime in this country. I do not diminish the importance of us taking part in the international drive against crime, and I know that the Home Secretary has made a point of doing that in Europe and elsewhere. However, what he should be concentrating his mind on are


crimes that particularly affect British people—muggings, crimes of violence, burglary and all the other categories of crime that have so increased over the past 10 years. By and large, the Bill hardly touches any of them. Nor does it touch adequately the growing size of the prison population.
It is an inadequate Bill and it contains many matters of which we disapprove. For that reason, we shall vote for our reasoned amendment and struggle to improve it in Committee.

Mr. Greg Knight: I am grateful to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. This is a wide-ranging measure, and I particularly welcome the inclusion of clause 30, which relates to the video link.
I also welcome clause 34. I accept that it is controversial among lawyers, but I have no hesitation in saying that it has my full support. It seems odd that a defendant can appeal if the sentence passed on him is too severe, yet there is no corresponding right for the Court of Appeal to consider a sentence that is considered to be inadequate.
As long ago as 1972, Parliament accepted that it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to refer points of law to the Court of Appeal when an acquittal had resulted from an alleged misdirection by the judge—for example, where he had accepted an application at half-time that there was no case to answer. I have long believed that a similar provision to allow reference of an allegedly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal would fill a gap in our judicial system, and that it would greatly benefit the public.
I was a little surprised by the vivid picture painted by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). As I understood it, he gave the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) going around the country whipping up public indignation at a perceived lenient sentence. He said that this might involve the Prime Minister, who would then nudge the Attorney-General to ensure that the matter went to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Hattersley: Exactly.

Mr. Knight: The right hon. Gentleman should read the Bill. It is still for the Court of Appeal to decide whether it will accept a referral. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Court of Appeal is likely to be influenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth. The right hon. Gentleman left his argument halfway through, because the Court of Appeal is the final arbiter of whether it accepts a referral.

Mr. Hattersley: Of course I am not saying that the Court of Appeal will be affected. What I am saying is that when the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth comes to the House and says, "Is it not a tragedy that the sentence is so light?", the Prime Minister will say, "Do not blame me; we referred it to the Court of Appeal." The Government will be represented as being tough when the Court of Appeal will be represented as being weak.

Mr. Knight: The final safeguard is in the Bill. The Court of Appeal will be able to determine the sentence to be

imposed. I regard the right hon. Gentleman's remarks as being in the realms of fantasy, and I still do. The final safeguard is in the Bill and it is for the Court of Appeal to say whether it wishes to hear the application.
If the court decides that it wishes to hear the application, the matter should proceed not only on what is at issue in the case but on what are then the questions of public importance with regard to sentencing practice for the future. I can find nothing objectionable in that.

Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if it is suggested that in some way my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) can influence my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the way to deal with the matter is to give the power of the right to decide whether the appeal should be sent to the Court of Appeal to the Crown prosecutor who was in charge when the case was originally heard?

Mr. Knight: I am satisfied with the integrity of the Attorney-General, which is why I opened my remarks by saying that I supported the provisions in the Bill.
Some of the other clauses have not been mentioned so far. Most solicitors will welcome clause 49, which allows the Crown court to deal with summary offences at the same time as it deals with offences on indictement. One of the most unprofitable, annoying and unrewarding duties that most solicitors have is to trot along to the magistrates court two or three months after one of their clients has been dealt with by the Crown court—that is, convicted and no doubt sentenced to a period of custody—and listen to the prosecution open some minor summary matters, perhaps to do with motoring offences.
The defendant must be produced from prison, thus taking up the time of the authorities, and invariably he will not have the benefit of legal aid. The solicitor will, as he regards it as a duty to his client, be in attendance, unpaid, to mitigate. Having done so, the court says, "We fine the defendant £10 on each charge or seven days' imprisonment concurrent." That is a waste of time. I think that most members in my branch of the legal profession will warmly welcome clauses 39 and 40.
All Members receive representations from the public. I have received hundreds of letters about the business next Friday when the House is to consider the Bill of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton.) I have received between 50 and 100 letters about Thursday's business, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. But over the past months and years I have received many representations—perhaps this is contrary to the experience of other hon. Members—about some of the matters with which this Bill seeks to deal. These representations have focused especially on increased sentences for child abuse, the sale of offensive weapons and the use of firearms in crime. I believe that there is warm public support for clauses 42 to 44.
I am aware that clause 113 is undoubtedly the most controversial of all the clauses. The House knows that it deals with peremptory challenge. I hope that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will forgive me when I say that his comments on this issue went over the top. In my view, the right of peremptory challenge is no longer necessary. It is not something that has been an unchanging tradition since time immemorial. The right of challenge has been reduced over a period, and I believe that in 1988 it creates an unacceptable tilt in favour of the defendant.
The reason for the existence of the right are historical. They may have been justified in the past but they are not now. A few hundred years ago, it is likely that the average defendant was poor and illiterate. He went to court to face a jury that had been chosen by the property qualification. I am sure that hon. Members will know that that qualification was removed only as recently as 1972. The defendant of a few hundred years ago could well have been on trial for his life. If that were not the position, he could well be facing a severe or savage sentence. Clearly, in those circumstances the defendant should be able to exercise the right of peremptory challenge.
However, the oppressiveness of our legal system against the defendant has diminshed over the years. Penalties have been reduced, the death sentence has been abolished and through the abolition of the property qualification for jurors, the justification of the peremptory challenge no longer applies. The corresponding tilt in the other direction has been adjusted and it is my view that the need for the peremptory challenge has disappeared.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give us his comments on the announcement made by the Earl of Caithness, Minister of State, Home Office, in another place on 2 November 1987 on proposed restrictions on the prosecution's right of standby?

Mr. Knight: The hon. and learned Gentleman credits me with a position of importance that I do not hold. I am not privy to the thinking of Home Office Ministers. I am aware that in February 1987 the Home Office issued guidelines on the exercise by the Crown of peremptory challenge. I understand that those who prosecute have been advised to use the right sparingly and subject to the contents of the guidelines. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know more, I am sure that he will address the point to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who is to reply.
In his report on the peremptory challenge, Lord Roskill stated that in his view the electoral roll for the catchment area around the relevant Crown court was likely to remain the only practical and acceptable basis on which jurors should be summoned for jury service. What is wrong with that? The issue that divides Members is the view that is held by some within the legal profession that we should allow an element of gerrymandering to secure a jury that will be more sympathetic to the defendant than the one originally empanelled. We are not divided on the way in which the random principle operates.
The element of gerrymandering to which I have referred runs against the random principle of our jury system. It allows attempts to be made to turn it into something else. That is why I have no difficulty in saying that the Government are right to pursue the issue of peremptory challenge in the Bill. It can be said that the random principle sometimes produces odd results, but I do not accept that that creates a case for continuing the right of peremptory challenge. Life itself often leads to odd results.
The defendant will still have the right of challenge for cause.

Mr. Peter Archer: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Lord Roskill in support of the proposition that we should maintain random selection of jurors. Is he aware that Lord Roskill has clearly expressed the view that some jurors are not appropriate for certain types of offence?

Mr. Knight: That may be, but that is a slightly different argument. Lord Roskill has made it clear that in his view the only acceptable way of continuing the random process is to use the electoral roll. There is, however, a divergence of opinion when it comes to the way in which fraud cases, for example, should be tried. There has been a debate over a number of years about whether certain cases of complex fraud should go before a jury, but that is an entirely different matter. I was addressing myself to clause 113 and not to that point. Our jury service generally has served us well and I believe that it will continue to do so without the tilt of the peremptory challenge.
The Bill is a comprehensive measure and in many ways it is far-reaching. Its proposals are to be welcomed and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: As the Home Secretary reminded us, it is 13 months since the Government introduced the earlier edition of the Bill that is now before us. I imagine that for some right hon. and hon. Members this will be an experience of déjà vu.
I come to the House for this debate with a sense of adventure.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will get over it.

Mr. Archer: Of that I have no doubt.
When the Bill was discussed earlier my mind was on other matters. It is only now that I am returning to what for most of my life has been my spiritual home.
The Bill has been improved since it was first introduced, and I believe that it could be made substantially better still. We live in the hope that there can be a meeting of minds in the subsequent stages of the Bill's consideration. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) will not find himself alone throughout his support of all the propositions in the Bill, because there are some matters on which we can agree. Equally, I suspect that there will be fundamental disagreements on some issues. Perhaps we should be looking for the reasons for those disagreements.
This is a Second Reading debate, and before we focus on detail we should take a synoptic view of the Bill. This is an occasion for considering the Bill in its context, and what we regard as relevant to that context may be one of the principal issues which divide us. We should be asking, "What is the philosophy behind the Bill? How far does it fit into considered policies? What are its objectives? How far is it calculated to achieve them?" I doubt whether that is an accurate description of how a Criminal Justice Bill sees the light of day. I imagine that when someone runs into the Home Office and says, "Hooray, we have a Criminal Justice Bill coming into the new legislative programme," there is great rejoicing and those concerned say, "This is great. We can now decant our files on jury challenges and on the various other things."
As a result, a Criminal Justice Bill is a nightmare for the practising profession. It is a terror for students, who have to try to remember which Criminal Justice Act contains which provisions. If I may echo the cri de coeur in another place by the noble and learned Lord Simon, I hope that those responsible for the Statutes in Force will incorporate the amendments as quickly as possible before we all have a nervous breakdown.
If Criminal Justice Bills usually have a bewildering assortment of provisions, some give more evidence than


others of coherent thought about legal and penal policy. I confess that I had hoped to hear from the Home Secretary of some of the principles alleged to connect the Bill's provisions. The Bill purports, as we have been reminded, to implement the proposals of the White Paper, so we need to go back to the White Paper to see how far it achieves those objectives. But if the legislation falls short of those objectives, that is not the full measure of our cirticism, because we are entitled to ask whether those objectives measure up to the nation's needs. Before we ask whether the Bill hits the target, we are entitled to ask whether we approve of the target's shape. Does the treatment reflect a proper diagnosis?
I have no doubt that, when some future Radzinowicz chronicles the history of crime in our time, he will speak of two crises. The first, about which we have been reminded, is the crime wave. I do not think that there is any dispute between the two sides of the House about the existence of the crime wave. There is no need to prove the obvious; but if one wanted figures, they were quoted during the debate in the other place. In 1980, about 55,000 cases were committed to the Crown courts and in 1985, over 84,000—an increase of over 50 per cent. The police have not been able to cope with that increase. In 1985, two thirds of those who committed crimes got away without being detected and of those who committed burglaries five sevenths were left free to enjoy the proceeds of their crimes. The courts, the probation service, the prisons—all the services related to crime—have been swamped by that massive increase.
I wholly agree with those who have said — I think that the Home Secretary said it — that the public are seriously concerned about the problem. I imagine that other hon. Members share my experience. When I return to my constituency, I am always harangued about the matter. But I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Those who have talked to me in the clubs about the crime wave do not perceive it in quite the same way as the Home Office. When those people speak of the crime wave, they are not concerned with City frauds or the distinction between murder and manslaughter. They are talking about burglaries by petty local burglars operating on the estate in which they live, about violence to the elderly, about vandalism and damage to lifts in blocks of flats.
Next weekend, when I am asked in one of the local clubs, what we have been doing in the House and I say that we have been discussing the Criminal Justice Bill, people will ask me what it contains. I suppose that I shall have to tell them about the abolition of jury challenges and about documentary evidence. I do not envisage that there will be dancing in the streets. Those people will say, "We want more policemen on the beat. We should like more street lighting in the Oldbury road. We should like burglar-proof locks on the front doors of flats and locks on the windows. But we cannot afford them. The council tells us that it cannot afford them." Perhaps the Home Secretary should tell the Secretary of State for the Environment that he is working in direct opposition to what the Home Secretary is trying to do.
We have heard little discussion about strategy. Are we directing our resources to the right crimes? If we cannot eliminate all crime, can we at least make sure that we pay attention to the activities which really trouble the

community? It has been some years since we heard anything about official thinking on which offences should be regarded as crimes and which activities, however unfortunate or unpleasant, should be decriminalised.
When Justice looked at the statute book a few years ago, it found more than 7,000 statutory offences, such as labelling a product in a way that does not give the same prominence to the weight in grammes as it does to the weight in pounds and ounces. If the public is to co-operate in the fight against crime, the category of crime should be reserved for actions which seem seriously anti-social and are regarded by the public with moral repugnance. Mr. Justice Stephen in "The History of the Criminal Law" wrote:
The sentence of the law is to the moral sentiment of the public what a seal is to hot wax.
Unless there is a clear connection between a criminal's action and an act that is wicked, selfish or dishonest, the community will not throw its weight behind law enforcement.
We might ask ourselves whether there are better sanctions than those that we are using. Of course, some crimes merit imprisonment. Of course, some offenders have to be taken out of circulation. But should we not have a clearer view of how effective imprisonment is as a deterrent?
This bring us to the second matter which future historians will record about our generation—the crisis in the prisons. Assuming that sending people to prison reduces crime, there must be a point at which each additional custodial sentence adds to the crisis to an extent which outweighs its value as a deterrent. I believe that the Home Office carried out some research in 1980, calling it research study No. 64. It estimated that, assuming that imprisonment reduces crime, a 40 per cent. reduction in the prison population would lead to an increase in convicted crime of only 1·6 per cent. Conversely, to reduce the number of offences by between 17 and 20 per cent. it would be necessary to increase the prison population by a factor of between four and seven times. Is it not a fair inference that we can reduce the present prison population without being overwhelmed by a further increase in the crime wave which would totally disrupt society?

Mr. Hind: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that another sensible approach would be to send people to prison earlier in their criminal careers rather than later and for shorter periods rather than longer? By doing that, the fear of prison would be maintained and prison would be a major deterrent in their minds. This would reduce the prison population in the manner described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Archer: I have the misfortune to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The fear of prison may be a deterrent, but that fear disappears the moment people go through the prison doors. After that, they have simply attended a college for teaching the technology of crime. If one sends them to prison earlier, one has given up hope that they might be brought back into honest society.
Before embarking on a consideration of the appropriate penal tariff for particular offences, perhaps it is worth considering how far the courts should be divorced from the consequences of the sentences that they pass. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook referred to the proposals for the removal of remission. In this country, the judge knows when he specifies a length of sentence that


it will bear no relation to what actually happens and indeed that he is required by law to close his mind to the provisions which govern the date of release.
Clearly, some account must be taken of matters which arise after sentence has been passed—for example, the prisoner's reaction to imprisonment. In 1967, his Honour Judge Stockdale told us that in Denmark it was possible for the court to pass an indeterminate sentence and that the court retained control over the subsequent process, so the court decides the date of release. If the proposal to remove remission is simply a method of increasing sentences, it does not seem to be a constructive approach, but if it is a way of looking again at the whole way in which the system operates, perhaps it is time we did look at it.
There have been debates in the course of the Bill's passage about how far the prosecution should have a role in the sentencing process. Judge Stockdale revealed that, in Holland, an important part of the prosecution's task is to ask for reports and to formulate proposals as to how best to deal with the offender. Frequently, it is not asking for higher and longer sentences. The judges are then involved, in various ways, with the offender's subsequent treatment.
I can understand that, since 1967, we have all lost our enthusiasm for reforming criminals. But presumably, even now, the penal process is intended to have some purpose and direction. Perhaps we could be told what the Home Office's thinking on all that is. I am making a plea for the Home Office to tell us how it wants to achieve what we should all like to achieve—the protection of our citizens from crime.
The amendment mentions our legal services. The House will not be dismayed to hear that I do not propose to embark on that subject tonight. There may be an opportunity to discuss it when the House discusses the Legal Aid Bill. But if we are urging people to respect the law, perhaps we should try to find ways of persuading them that the law respects them.
The first objective set out in the White Paper is to ensure that the courts have adequate powers to punish. That is a reaction to the problems that confront us, but it is not the only possible one. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it could be a reaction, not to the problems, but to sensational headlines in the tabloid press. Before we assume that higher sentences are necessarily an answer, we should ask whether we are using custodial sentences to the best advantage now, having regard to the crime that we want to deter.
I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) in a publication some years ago entitled "Politics and Prisons", compared the loss to the Treasury from income tax frauds—then running at £4 billion a year—with the loss from social security frauds, which were running at £200 million a year. In the period under review, he contrasted the fact that there had been four sentences of immediate custody for income tax frauds and 404 for social security frauds. So is it not possible that the most effective discouragement for crime might be found in other directions?
I should have thought that the most effective discouragement—this might secure universal agreement in the House—from crime for any individual would be the disapproval of his peer group. Young unemployed people belonging to a minority group on a London housing estate are most likely to abstain from crime, not because Members of Parliament disapprove of it, but

because we had managed to arrange things such that the young members of the minority group on that estate disapproved of it. So there might be an argument for the Government re-examining "Faith in the City", which they dismissed in such a cavalier fashion some time ago, and for them looking again at the recommendations of Lord Scarman.
The foreword to the White Paper states that the Government want to ensure that the court system operates effectively and efficiently. The most talked about proposal in the Bill which seems to relate to that is the one that has already been discussed — to remove peremptory challenges to jurors. When I talk about the Bill to those of my constituents who want to discuss it — I cannot imagine that the conversation will get out of hand—they will want to know what relevance that has to the While Paper's objectives. Many will understand that we are depriving the defence of a right such it has enjoyed since before the days of Blackstone, and which was surely intended, and has operated, to maintain confidence in the jury system.
This is not an occasion for rehearsing all the arguments—I shall contain myself until some other opportunity arises—but the public have been repeatedly assured of the virtues of the adversarial system, which means that one tries to maintain a balance between the prosecution and the defence. The public will not easily understand why the defence is to be deprived of a right that is available to the prosecution, and which the Government propose shall remain so. When it is explained that it must remain available to the prosecution because the Crown sometimes needs to ask a juror to stand by and it would be embarrassing to explain the reasons for that, the public will agree that that is true. If the prosecution wants to remove a juror because he is illiterate, for example, no one wants to stand up in open court and say, "That man cannot read." But the public will not understand why it is less embarrassing if it is the defence which wants to remove an illiterate juror.
When the right of the defence to challenge without cause is under discussion, the public are told that it might hurt someone if the defence suggested that he was not a proper person to try a case. I can understand that someone who is asked to leave the jury box might feel that he has been the subject of some unspecified criticism. Apparently, however, the juror suffers no similar blow to his pride when the Crown says he is not a suitable person. The public may wonder, if it would strengthen the jury system and improve the court system to withdraw serious frauds from consideration by people who are not accountants, why it would not strengthen the system also to remove a member of the National Front from the trial of a black defendant without the need to go into a detailed account of his political views. Perhaps together we may be able to find some solution to that problem if we all keep open minds. I promise that my hon. Friends and I will try to keep open minds; perhaps we may have a similar undertaking from the Government.
The next objective in the White Paper relates to extradition. I would like to say a great deal, for reasons the House may well know, about that, but, again, I shall restrain my exuberance—except to say, as the subject was raised by the Home Secretary, that what is at issue is not whether the legal systems of specific foreign countries are better or worse than ours. Certainly I hope that the Government will not attempt to dispose of the issue by


saying that we can talk about whether the legal systems of some countries are good or bad when we get an hour and a half to debate an order at 11.30 some night. Not only would that be distasteful; it is not what is at issue. Something far more traditional and fundamental than that is at stake in this country.
The final objective is to include provision for the victims of crime. We have all thought for a long time that they should receive more attention than they do, and we support the victim support schemes which provide help at an early stage, when the victim is shocked and bewildered and unsure of where to go. People in that position need support. I am delighted to be able to assure the victim support schemes that the Government, too, approve of them, and will bear that in mind when the schemes come for more resources. So the test of the Government's sincerity was how they dealt with a proposal on the victim support schemes in another place.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is to be placed on a statutory footing, which is good, because that is intended to improve its effectiveness. At present, when the board assesses compensation for the victim of a crime of violence, it includes the cost of damage to clothes. That might be a fairly minor matter to us, but to a pensioner it can be quite an important one. When the matter was raised in another place by the noble lord, Lord Morton, we wondered whether it had been left out by an oversight; but it transpired that the Government had left it out deliberately because it would save them £400,000 a year. So, in Committee, we may want to discuss the Government's commitment to supporting the victims of violence.
It would have been pleasing to know the Government's thinking on such issues as bringing together offenders and their victims. Of course, one must be selective and sensible. It cannot be done in every case. But the Home Office may have studied the victim-offender research programme in Kitchener, Ontario, where it was discovered that some offenders, on meeting their victims as people, realised for the first time the consequences of their crimes, and that had an important effect on their future conduct. Sometimes, the victim was less insistent on harsh sentences when he knew how the offence came about. Schemes such as that may make everyone wiser, and, if wiser, more likely to be law-abiding.
There is a great deal of common ground in the House about what the Government should be trying to achieve. Some provisions in the Bill merit our approval, but it must be judged as a whole. It fails to show a consistent policy. It gives less evidence of a constructive attempt to reduce crime than of a response to the baying of the tabloid press. It contains a number of proposals which are unfair and counter-productive. If we are looking for reasons to vote against the Bill, those seem reasons enough.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). The Bill has a consistent policy that is supported by the people. It contains so much that will improve the ability of our legal system to contain and, one hopes, to reduce crime and to secure the conviction of the guilty, that it is difficult to know where to start one's speech. I hope that 1 will know when to stop.
The speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was much more reasonable than the speech made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) the last time that we debated the Bill. However, the concern of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook for law and order would be much more convincing if his party did not spend so much of its time attacking the police, insulting the judges and urging breaches of the law.
The Government have already done a tremendous amount to improve the legal system and to reduce the rising incidence of crime. In that context, one has only to recall the passing of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which gave more powers to the police and at the same time protected the liberty of the subject. We also think of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and the administrative introduction of the tape recording of interviews which, we hope, will become more widespread and national.
We think too of the setting up of the serious fraud office, the measures taken against City frauds and particularly against insider dealings and the considerable improvement to the police force in terms of money, equipment and organisation and the better morale that followed. We think of the neighbourhood watch schemes and of the many other measures that have been taken for the prevention of crime and we see the increase in the prison building programme. One could go on listing the Government's achievements, and when one feels at all downcast about the rate of crime, one can cheer oneself up considerably by reminding oneself of many of the measures that the Government have taken. The Bill substantially increases even that catalogue. The answer that one gives to the Opposition, who criticise the level of crime that still exists—a deplorable level even under a Conservative Government—is that one can imagine how much worse it would be if none of the measures that I have listed had been taken.
There are so many issues in the Bill that 10 minutes is quite an impossible corset in which to try to fit. Therefore, I shall take the time to raise some issues in the Bill with which I do not agree and on which in due course the Government cannot expect my support. I shall speak about one or two other areas in which action might be taken. The Minister may take it as read that I support the remaining important measures in the Bill and I shall not waste the time of the House by attempting to explain why.
I especially favour the measures being taken to deal with child abuse. The retrial provisions are long overdue and the Government were quite right to ignore the pressures to trim the amount of work that goes on in the Crown court by making petty theft triable only in the magistrates court. I congratulate the Government on resisting that pressure.
I have had doubts about the extradition changes in part I, but the Home Secretary has persuaded me that it is neither acceptable for Britain to be seen as a haven for criminals nor for us to be unable to get back into Britain for trial our own suspected criminals. Those considerations should be weighed against the need to maintain the prima facie rule.
We should remind ourselves that clause 3 enshrines a number of important protections. It is not just a question of another state being able to take back a suspected offender whenever it asks, because under this Bill that state


cannot do so if it is for a political or a purely military offence, or if there is any intention to persecute the fugitive. That state cannot get him back if he is likely to be prejudiced at his trial by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion. It cannot do so if his conviction in the foreign state was in absentia and it would not be in the interest of justice to return him. That state cannot have him returned if he has previously been acquitted or convicted of the offence, or if the object of returning him is for a prosecution or detention in respect of previous offences not covered by the request, or for lesser offences. Therefore, built into the provisions of the Bill there are certain substantial protections. On balance, I support the Government's extradition proposals.
I have considerable doubts about the proposed method of dealing with offensive weapons. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to urge on the Home Secretary that the better solution is to get at the knife carrier at the point of sale. What appals British juries is the thought that so many of these wicked weapons are openly on sale in weapon shops, especially in London but probably in other great cities as well. It may be that the proposals for dealing with possession of these weapons ought to be in the Bill, but I have real doubts about whether they will have any more effect on stopping possession than does the existing law with its provisions, which are far less offensive to the principle of burden of proof. I feel that we shall have to come back to this issue and introduce some kind of licensing scheme for shops.
It does not seem to be beyond the facilities of a police station that has in its locality a shop selling these weapons — and there cannot be many shops — to require the proprietor to submit a list of the weapons. A local police officer could then go to the shop and have a look at the catalogue or list. If he takes objection to any of the items on sale or to be sold or thinks that the chief of police would take objection, he could raise it with the shop owner. If, notwithstanding the advice that he has received, the shop owner wants to take the risk of putting the item on display, the chief of police could have it confiscated if permission is not given to sell it. After all, in the firearms legislation we are proposing substantially to widen the need for licensing of shotguns and firearms. The sale of weapons from a few shops would place very little extra burden on the police.
I shall now turn to the peremptory challenge provisions. It hurts me to say it, but here I agree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. With 25 years of practice in the criminal courts behind me, my views are well known, and I shall not burden the House by giving a detailed explanation of them. It is, of course, complete nonsense to say that guilty people are acquitted wholesale because defendants are tailoring juries merely by having the right to say no three times. A jury cannot be tailored just by the defendant removing from the jury somebody he does not like the look of, unless he could decide which juror would be next and he knew in advance what their predispositions were. That never arises under a peremptory challenge, but it will arise if we have challenges for cause and we go down the very slippery path that the United States of America has gone down. The peremptory challenge should be left as it is because it is a safety valve. Neither hon. Members nor lawyers who do not practise in the criminal courts seem always to understand what goes on in those courts.
The defendant, who very often has been in custody for a long time and thinks that the whole system is weighted against him, sits in the dock throughout the trial because he wishes to be there. Criminal trials are a voluntary process.
If we make it look to the defendant as though the system is weighted heavily against him, he can make it very difficult to conduct a criminal trial. Juries do not like it when a defendant is taken down below, so he does not hear the evidence adduced against him and is not in a position to instruct his counsel. With a peremptory challenge the defendant knows that he has the right to assert himself against the system; to say to three jurors who may have been selected deliberately, as far as he knows, by some official somewhere, "I do not want you." He can challenge three times and it takes three minutes. For that very small price, the defendant feels that justice will be done in his trial.
The Bill will sweep all that away, but it will do more than that. The illogicality and unfairness of stopping the defence challenging the jury, but allowing the prosecution the right to stand by for the Crown, was discussed last time the Bill was debated, and the Government said, "No, it is very important to maintain the right to stand by for the Crown." The House of Lords forced the Government to modify the right to stand by for the Crown and has added absurdity to these proposals. If the prosecutor has a reasonable ground for thinking that somebody on the jury—perhaps because they have been convicted of minor criminal offences, have had rows with the police, or for some other reason—will favour the defendant without regard to the evidence, he will be able to do nothing about it. With this absurd provision we shall build in the inability of the prosecution, when justice would demand it, to have somebody stand by for the Crown and have another juror take his place.
The peremptory challenge provision is nonsense. It is a confidence trick on the British public, who think that because the defendant will be screwed down not to have a right which now exists, we shall convict more people. Everybody knows that in a criminal trial, if the jury has any reason to think that the state is being unfair, it has a predisposition to acquit. The prosecution in a criminal trial must convince the jury at every stage that, whatever else it may be doing, it is being wholly fair.
I come to the right of appeal by the prosecution against inadequate sentences. It hurts me to go on agreeing with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, but I agree with much of what he said. Our traditions mean something, particularly in our legal system, which is greatly admired by countries which have changed the system and wish that they had not done so. The tradition of double jeopardy is very important. We would transgress the rule of double jeopardy by giving the prosecution two bites of the cherry; an opportunity to second-guess the first judge, who has heard all the circumstances of the case — unlike any judge in the Court of Appeal — before he passes sentence. It is contrary to our traditions to invite the prosecution to do too much in regard to sentence, and they will be invited to do more if the provision goes through.
We ought to have enough political nous to know what pressures, whether we call them political or otherwise, the Attorney-General will be under when the tabloid press goes to town on the alleged inadequacy of a sentence. If the Attorney-General stands at the Dispatch Box as a lawyer and says, "I have looked at the matter; the sentence


is not inadequate," too often, the Government will have a rotten reputation for always saying no to public clamour for reference to the Court of Appeal for increased sentences. If he comes in and refers a case to the Court of Appeal for consideration, the Court of Appeal will look at all the circumstances and in many cases will say that the sentence is right and that the press did not know what it was talking about because it was not there throughout the trial.
The press often comes in for the opening of a trial and the conclusion and it wants to whip up public feeling about a matter. It does not know about the social inquiry report and did not see the demeanour of witnesses or hear the defendant arid other people who give evidence, who may have thrown a completely different light on the balanced facts of the case as opened by the prosecution. I can hardly remember taking part in a case where the evidence was exactly as the prosecution said it would be when the case was opened. The press is very seldom in the Central Criminal Court, so I do not suppose that it is any more often present from the beginning to end of trials in other courts. The press gives a completely wrong impression.
The provision is absolutely unnecessary because the Court of Appeal has developed guidelines. Recorders, assistant recorders, circuit judges or High Court judges, before they sentence, take out a great big book with all the guidelines in it. The guidelines on the types of offence that the public feel most upset about—child abuse, rape and drug offences—are all set out thoroughly; decision after decision of judges of the Court of Appeal saying, "If this is the situation, that should follow." We may as well abolish the guidelines if we are going to ask the judges of the Court of Appeal to review the sentences. It is unnecessary to change the system which has developed.
It has been said in the debate that it is inequitable that the defendant but not the prosecution should have the right to appeal against sentence. But there is no inherent balance between the rights of the prosecution and the rights of the defendant in criminal trials. It is because the powers of the state are so great — the power of investigation and of calling witnesses—that we redress the inherent imbalance by placing the burden of proof on the prosecution and by giving the defendant the right to remain silent. Those measures are in our criminal system to ensure balance where there is a natural imbalance, so the argument that it would be fair to have the same balance for the prosecution as for the defendant is irrelevant. I shall support or even table an amendment to change that provision and if a three-line Whip is imposed, I shall ignore it.
The life imprisonment provision for carrying firearms during the commission of a crime is another con on the public. The public think that the Government are somehow being macho. Nobody wants severe sentences for violent criminals more than I do — I want capital punishment for those who murder—but this is a crazy measure. If a gun is not used and is just carried, 14 years is an adequate sentence. If it is used for attempted murder or murder, the sentence is life imprisonment anyway, so this provision is not necessary.
What worries me is the possible temptation of a criminal caught with a gun to use it in order to escape identification and being brought to trial because the sentence for using it will be the same as for not using it.

A second worry concerns a young policeman faced by an offender with a gun. What on earth do we expect him to do, knowing that the man with the gun can escape if he shoots the young policeman dead and that if he is caught his sentence is the same for using the gun as for carrying it? Whether or not the public think that this would be a good measure, it is preposterous. The police are opposed to it and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will think again.
We are changing the procedure to confiscate the profits of serious crime, which is good and long overdue. It started with the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and is now being extended. The problem is that its administration through our courts does not seem to have been working too well under that Act. I should rather like the Minister to tell me in just how many cases orders have been made and how much money has been collected by this administrative measure for enforcing the law on drug trafficking offences. I should also like him to explain to the House if he can, and if he cannot perhaps to write to us or to publish the answer in the Official Report, what improvements he is proposing to make in the administration of this measure to ensure that it works better than the Drug Trafficking Offences Act. Obviously, the principle is good, but if in the administration of the law this turns out to be a waste of time, we must take cognisance of that fact.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary came briefly to grips with the question of the right to silence. I am one of those who believes that the right to silence is now largely mythological and may even be dangerous. A jury might think that an innocent man would have given an explanation and may not be impressed in the least by being told that the solicitor has told him to say nothing. If he had explained his defence, he might not have been charged in the first place. That may not impress juries now, even if it did in the past. There is a risk of somebody who is innocent being convicted merely because, when he had an opportunity to give his defence, he did not do so. In some cases that may be the most significant piece of evidence in a trial. If there is that sort of risk, the right to silence has become a danger rather than a protection.
I say that the right to silence is largely mythological because what one says to somebody who is not a policeman or a customs officer without a warning is admissible against one. I was involved in a trial where it was held that the police did not have to caution a suspected offender until they had a prima facie case against him. Although the law has been slightly changed in recent years it is still open to a judge to pass an adverse comment in a case where a defendant has not given evidence. The judge will say, "There is one person who could have told us what happened, but he has chosen not to tell us. It is his right, but what a pity." In those and other circumstances the right to silence which a man can take advantage of and be criticised for is hollow.
However, I should like to see how the other improvements which the Government have introduced into our legal system, particularly the tape-recorded interviews of suspects, work out before I recommend to my hon. Friend that we interfere with the cherished right to silence. Therefore, I welcome the Home Secretary's statement today that he would want to delay any decision about any interference with the right to silence until there has been much more consultation and thought.
Finally, I turn to areas in which I should have liked to see some action, but, alas, there is none. I have already mentioned capital punishment and I have no doubt that its introduction would do more to reduce crime and violence in our society than any other single measure. Capital punishment is a deterrent I talk from some knowledge. In the early years of my practice at the criminal bar there were many heavy villains who may have done a bit of killing here and there and I used to ask them in the cells, where they fortunately were, whether they were deterred by the threat of the rope, and they used to say that they were. They were deterred from carrying weapons which might go off and from going on enterprises with juveniles on whom they could not rely to keep their heads in a tight corner.
I have little doubt, from anecdotal experience, together with a certain amount of common sense which I seem on this matter to share with the overwhelming number of people in our society, that capital punishment is a deterrent. Apart from that, people would believe that it was safer to walk the streets if they knew that at the end of the line they had the protection of the threat of capital punishment to deter violent criminals. But I know that that will not be included in the Bill, however much I suggest an amendment.
Secondly, the courts would like the power to suspend youth custody orders. At the most recent of the judicial boards' seminars there were about 60 or 70 judges, recorders and assistant recorders. I asked the judge in charge if he thought it right to ask the assembled gathering what their views were, and unanimity would not be too strong a way of describing their support for the right to suspend these orders.
Courts can suspend any other form of custodial treatment, so there is nothing wrong in principle with suspension. It would be the sword of Damocles over the head of a potential young offender who, having been convicted and having had a youth custody order suspended against him, might be deterred from acting in such a way as to bring the order into effect. It would help relieve the overcrowding in young persons' institutions which now occurs, because if a judge has no right to suspend a youth custody order and the appropriate sentence is a youth custody order, the judge sends the offender inside.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): My hon. and learned Friend has much experience in these matters both as a Member of Parliament and, like the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), as a recorder. If suspended custodial orders were permitted, is there not a danger that they might be substituted for other forms of non-custodial disposal lower down the tariff?

Mr. Lawrence: That is always a problem. We have been over this before, when suspended sentences were introduced. On balance, however, suspended sentences have been thought to be right despite that possibility. If we can avoid sending into custody a reasonable proportion of young people who are currently sent into youth custody where they learn to become criminals, that would be a good thing. I think that there is a reasonable likelihood that there would be a significant saving, whatever might happen further down the line.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that when a young person is being sentenced there

is often no money to pay a fine and a conditional discharge seems an absurdity for what may be a serious offence, with the result that many judges pass youth custody sentences? Does he agree that suspended custody orders would mean that many people would serve shorter terms or no immediate term at all?

Mr. Lawrence: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. There could also be partially suspended sentences. I ask the Government to think again about this. I have made representations to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the past, but clearly they have no magic effect on him, as in this and other measures I have signally failed to persuade him. Nevertheless, judges want this not as a brutal and nasty thing to do but as a helpful and constructive measure both for the sentencer and for society.
Thirdly, there is no provision in the Bill to deal with people resident in Britain who may have been responsible for the mass murder of civilians or the killing of British soldiers captured by the Nazis in the last war. There is considerable concern about the continued presence in this country of a number of war criminals. I have heard one Home Office Minister say that if one such monster remains he should not be allowed to remain untried. That raises the question of how such a person can be tried for an offence committed outside the jurisdiction and when that person was not then a British citizen. Under our existing law, that is simply not possible, so the law must be changed. I ask, therefore, that consideration be given to an amendment to this Bill to achieve that.

Mr. Devlin: Retrospectively.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend says that it would be retrospective, and there would indeed be an element of retrospection in such legislation.
There are two kinds of retrospection, however—one that is unacceptable and one that is not. The unacceptable kind makes criminal an act that was not criminal at the time when it was committed, thus punishing people who had every reason to believe that they were innocent at the time when the act was committed. That is unacceptable retrospective legislation and we in this country are against it.
The other kind of retrospection involves bringing to trial a person who knew at the time that he was committing murder or, indeed, mass murder—we are talking here about genocide. It does not involve bringing to criminal trial a person who had reason to believe that he was innocent. The retrospection involves merely the procedures whereby the person is brought to justice. In matters of genocide, the law should always have been that the alleged perpetrators could be brought to trial by the forces of law and order wherever the act may have been committed. I do not believe that that form of retrospection is anathema to the British people. We could then bring to trial people who committed mass murder but got away with it because our system did not allow us to prosecute, either because the person was not a British citizen at the time or because the act was committed outside the jurisdiction.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, regrettably, our law deals only with offences against the state and not with offences against humanity of the kind that he has described?

Mr. Lawrence: I agree entirely. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Faced with the same problem, other countries such as Canada and Australia have changed their laws in the way that I suggest and are asking why this country—the great legal force of the western world—has not yet done so.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that he is considering all these matters and I know that he is most sympathetic and wants only the best. He has said that he does not intend to let the matter drop but that the time to deal with it is "not now". In the old rabbinical phrase, I ask my right hon. Friend, "If not now, when?" If we cannot introduce an amendment to this Criminal Justice Bill I am sure that those who run the affairs of this party in Parliament may find a thousand and one reasons why other legislation should take precedence over a specific measure to deal with this issue.

Mr. John Patten: My hon. and learned Friend may not have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say earlier that he intended to make his views known before this Bill had completed all its proceedings in this House.

Mr. Lawrence: My right hon. Friend also said that this Bill was not the place to make such a change. I ask him to reconsider that and to make the change in this Bill because I do not believe that legislative time will willingly be given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Patronage Secretary for a specific measure to deal with this matter.

Mr. Devlin: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will bring my remarks to a close, as I have already taken too long.
This debate may have seemed to lack lustre because we have been going over ground that we have trodden before. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of good in the Bill. In my view, it is a pity to spoil it by including the parts that are bad. In my respectful submission, the Bill could be improved by including the provisions that I have mentioned. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has listened intently to speeches from all parts of the House. I hope that he will ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to think again about some of the matters I have raised.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that, as a newcomer to this Criminal Justice Bill, he viewed it with a sense of adventure. He is not the only one. The new Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) viewed it with such a sense of adventure that they took off to the Gaza Strip to take part in a little exercise in competitive aggression.
I view this Criminal Justice Bill mark 2 with a sense of the inevitable. However, I hope that it includes the inevitability that we will have as honest and earnest a debate on this Bill as we had on the Criminal Justice Bill mark 1. We have now the advantage of the expert hand and eye of their Lordships to guide us on certain points, although I will take strong issue with them on at least one.
I believe that no Criminal Justice Bill or law reform legislation is worth a pinch of salt unless it is part of a coherent strategy to achieve four aims. I would characterise the first aim as strengthening the rule of law; and the second as enhancing the regard in which the law is held by its consumers. After all, the law is the one commodity which the public are forced to consume every day of their lives, like it or not. I would characterise the third aim as increasing the efficiency of the law as a guarantor of justice to all; and the fourth as avoiding partisan political prejudices which, in my view at least, and I suspect in the view of most hon. Members, should have no place in any Criminal Justice Bill. I consider this Bill against that four-point test.
I am afraid that I believe that, although this Bill has many points to recommend it, it fails the test on a number of specific items. I want to begin by considering the item that strikes me as most offensive in that it falls prey to the fourth consideration — partisan political prejudice. I make no apology for returning to the matter of the peremptory challenge.
I listened with fascination to the debates in another place on the right of peremptory challenge. I stood at the Bar of the House in another place with the Minister of State and others. We heard some riveting speeches from several of their Lordships who have great experience of the criminal law. However, I must confess that I felt that some of those speeches were delivered with a rather shaky hand. Some of their Lordships were speaking about an area of the law in which they have not operated for 20 years or more, although partly of course because of the great distinction that some of them have achieved within the judiciary. It seemed to me that some of them were out of touch with the reality of the practical considerations of criminal trials about which the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke so eloquently a few moments ago, in a speech which lasted just over the 10 minutes he promised.
The debate in another place did not answer the question of how the alternative would work, and by that I mean the alternative from the point of view of the defence. No answer has been given to the proposition that we are about to embark on an unseemly procedure in which some judges will consider challenges for cause in the absence of the jury panel, while others will consider challenges for cause in the presence of the jury panel. Some challenges for cause will be couched elegantly and eloquently in terms which the jury cannot understand but the judge can: it is clearly offensive to the legal system to conceal what is being said from those concerned in the case, through the use of lawyers' code. Some judges will be prepared to hear applications, for example, on the ground that there should be more black people or women on a jury, but other judges will refuse to hear such applications. We will have a mess on our hands.
One of the points emphasised in previous debates on this issue was the inequality between the prosecution and the defence in the light of the Government's proposals to abolish the defence right of peremptory challenge. I should be grateful if the Minister would pay close attention to my next point. The Government have recognised that there is some force in the complaint of inequality between the defence and the prosecution based upon the previous proposals before the House. They have purported to deal with those objections. However, this time they have produced a severe handicap to the Crown.
Criteria have been laid down which were referred to in another place on 2 November 1987 by the then Minister of State, Home Office, the Earl of Caithness. He said that stand by would be permitted only in two sets of circumstances:
The first is where a jury check has been authorised by the Attorney-General". — [Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 1987; Vol. 489, c. 819.]
That applies to jury vetting cases. It encompasses an insignificant number of cases and we can forget about it for all practical purposes. The other category involves a juror who is manifestly unsuited for jury service. The example given by the Earl of Caithness involved an illiterate juror. That means that in the ordinary run of case, where juries are not vetted, the only right of stand by for the Crown will be if the juror is manifestly unsuited for jury service.
I have done a lot of prosecuting in my time and have attended many courts as a prosecutor when that ubiquitous figure of knowledge, the court police liaison officer, has sidled up to me and said, "Can I have a word please, Mr. Carlile? You see that fellow in the brown hat over there — he is known to associate with criminals. He's got no form, Mr. Carlile, but he is pretty high up our criminal intelligence list." Like a responsible prosecutor, I believe, I stood up without giving cause and said, "Stand by for the Crown." That juror is not manifestly unsuited for jury service under the criteria set down by the Earl of Caithness. He is certainly unsuited for service, but he will not be liable to exclusion under the guidelines which have been set down.
The Government have now introduced measures that will create difficulties for the prosecution, albeit in a commendable effort to create equality with the defence. The result is that there will be a complete dog's breakfast to replace a wholly practical system which has been operating for a very long time.
I am afraid that, like the hon. and learned Member for Burton and others, I will be returning to the issue of peremptory challenge to claim that there is no better solution than the current practice. I hasten to add that that is not an iconoclastic view. It is a practical view based on everyday experience in Crown courts all over the country.
I now want to consider extradition. We have reason to be proud—perhaps this is slightly iconoclastic—of the principle underlying our extradition law, the prima facie rule. That means that, before a foreign country can obtain extradition it must show that there is a case to answer on the charge. It has to show not that there is guilt, but that there is a case to answer. That is rather like what happens to a person who is sent for trial in a British court. Before he can be committed for trial, whether to the Old Bailey or Caernarfon Crown court, it must be shown that there is a prima facie case against him.
Surely it is justifiable to say that we should apply the same standard before we send a British subject or anyone else to a foreign country and foreign jurisdiction where there may not be legal aid and where he may even be left in solitary confinement for nine months while he awaits trial. Surely there should be a prima facie rule in his case as well. It is not a demanding rule. As the Heysel stadium case showed, the problem is the procedure, not the rule, and I welcome any measures to improve the rules of evidence to enable foreign states to achieve, by simple means, proof of their prima facie case.
Let us not forget that the present situation is not one in which a foreign country has to flounder in the British legal system. Every foreign state is represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions when it seeks an extradition. It has the whole machinery of the DPP's office at its disposal before it appears in court.

Mr. Lawrence: Is it not an unwarrantable interference in the internal affairs of other countries if we insist on having rules that they do not want for the production of their accused?

Mr. Carlile: I turn the hon. and learned Member's question on its head. We would welcome the introduction of a prima facie rule in other countries so that we could feel sure that a fair standard of justice was applied before extradition to Britain.
Of course there is another point. Comity is extremely important. When an order is passed by the House, we may be looking at a foreign state and at a system of government that we applaud, but the time may come when that changes. The most dangerous phase is when we are unsure about the system of government in that state. If a shocking dictatorship were introduced we should withdraw the order, but in the interim period, when we were not sure about the fairness of a judicial system, there would be a real risk of injustice. We are safer with the prima facie rule.
In regard to extradition, I am also concerned about the removal of the speciality rule, which would enable the Secretary of State, by an executive act, having extradited someone for one charge, to agree that he should be tried for another wholly different charge. I do not think that that should be left to executive action.
I turn to another aspect of the Bill that causes me great concern. As I hope I have already made clear, I am concerned that criminal procedures should be simple; but I am equally concerned that they should be fair. The part of the Bill that deals with documentary evidence in criminal proceedings goes much too far. Although judges would exercise control over their use, the Bill allows experts' reports to be given in evidence without the expert giving evidence in person. In criminal and civil cases, I have seen too many experts' reports which were simply wrong. The Minister of State should know that it is the experience of practitioners—if I can use a term of art—that some experts are on the game. They are prepared to give expert evidence according to the party asking for that expert evidence. This part of the Bill pays no regard to that fact.
A further piece of evidence which could well be let in as a result of changes introduced in the Bill is the note in the policeman's notebook—for example, of the remarks, made by a witness in a police car. That is a form of hearsay evidence which is often not credible. Of course, most police officers prepare their notebooks fairly, but there are police officers who turn up in court using fair copies of notes made at the time. Those copies are fairer in writing than in justice. There is a great danger of the hearsay evidence contained in policemen's notebooks being introduced and causing great injustice, albeit in a minority of cases. We shall have to look closely at that category of documentary evidence which can be given in hearsay form before assenting to it.
I turn to the removal of certain types of case from the jury. Criminal damage of £1,999 or less, common assault and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle are no longer


triable by jury. A person with no convictions who is tried for criminal damage amounting to £1,000 or £1,500 will usually be in jeopardy of a gaol sentence. He may well be in jeopardy of losing his job, and he will certainly be in jeopardy of losing his reputation and the respect of all around him. That is much too serious a case for the defendant to be deprived of his right to trial by jury.
Common assault is an offence that often arises in highly emotional situations. It is often dealt with rather too summarily by magistrates courts. Cases of common assault are two a penny, and most defendants plead guilty. However, a defendant who is charged for the first time in his life with an offence of violence against a person, even if he is charged only with common assault, surely should have the right for his peers to decide whether he has committed the offence.
The same applies to the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. I have seen such cases in which the issues have been extremely complex—for example, those involving terms of employment. The professional skill of the judge has often been needed to sort out those issues and enable the matter to be fairly decided.

Mr. Devlin: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman in the middle of his flow, but would he be interested in tabling an amendment to cover his point about a first-time offender, allowing all other cases to be dealt with in the magistrates court?

Mr. Carlile: I used the example of the first-time offender as the starkest illustration of the point. My direct answer to the hon. Gentleman is no, although I should like to think about it further. If it is the best that we can salvage, and if the hon. Gentleman is offering to take part in such an effort, he may well find me, and other hon. Members, on board. I am grateful to him for his question.
I welcome many parts of the Bill. I welcome the fact that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has been put on a statutory footing. I welcome the tentative beginnings of video links for children, although I think that we will hear more radical suggestions from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I welcome, too, the parts of the Bill that deal with forfeiture, compensation, knives and child cruelty.
Like the hon. and learned Member for Burton, I should like to see a provision for suspended youth custody sentences. I introduced a ten-minute Bill on the subject a long time ago. The argument that more young people would end up in custody is wrong. The problem in sentencing a youngster of 17 or 18 is that usually there is no money with which to fine him. A conditional discharge sounds terribly weak and namby-pamby, so he ends up going straight inside for a short youth custody sentence. It is in those cases that a suspended or partly suspended sentence would be used. In this context, I reassure the Minister of State that the regular bulletins which are now sent round by the Judicial Studies Board are read by judges, who pay attention to them.
I agree, too, with the hon. and learned Member for Burton about war crimes, which need to be dealt with in a positive way. There is a world of difference between retrospectively rendering a crime something which was not a crime and making a jurisdictional change which, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) suggested, would deal with crimes against humanity.

Surely every right-thinking person expects the House to take measures to enable those guilty of crimes against humanity to be tried, even long after the event. We have heard a good deal about comity today in relation to extradition, but a good number of our friends abroad have dealt with this situation satisfactorily. It is possible for war criminals to be tried, and I suggest that it would be an act of comity if we did the same.
The Bill represents part of, if it is a strategy, an incoherent strategy, in that it fails to build confidence in the rule of law and the legal system for the reasons that I have given and others. It weakens civil liberties, does nothing to deal with the problem of a burgeoning population in the prisons, does not enhance respect for the law and can only earn the description, "grave disappointment".

Mr. Tim Devlin: Although the Bill has been gone through in some detail before, I was unable to take part then. I am grateful to the House for delaying its discussion of the Bill so that I could take part.
I do not have any children but, if I did, I think that, like many parents in my constituency and the country as a whole, I should be feeling quite anxious about the prospect of their being abused physically or sexually in some dark, sordid corner of our society when I was not on hand to keep an eye on them.
That web of fear and doubt has thickened throughout the nation during the past year as those who care about children have brought more of this horrifying phenomen into the open. Some elements of the abuse—we may call it passive abuse—has always gone on and all of us have been vaguely aware of it. I refer to the taking of lewd photographs of children and various exposures in front of them. The subject has not, however, been a matter of great worry to the majority of people.
The sudden trumpeting by interested professionals of the truly nasty cases — perhaps I might call them the active cases—such as the baby battering, the physical, sexual acts and the violence, have made the public rightly anxious, especially when the perpetrator might be a trusted or respectable person such as a teacher, vicar, social worker or doctor.
The prospect is frightening. Many of us grew up as innocent children, unaware until comparatively late of the ugly world that surrounds us. It is perhaps those who have had that privilege who express most horror when they read the chilling statistics presented by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children or the National Children's Home and learn of the prolonged misery and degradation of other children's lives.
The shift in attitude requires us to contemplate these matters within the bounds of the family, and often on the perpetration of a deception of, perhaps, a spouse. One's natural reaction is to rebound in horror or leave the problem to someone else.
In my early days at the bar I took that attitude, because I felt that child law was too complicated, too emotional and too difficult for careful and dispassionate consideration. We cannot shy away from our responsibilities, however. It is our responsibility to protect these saddened, violated children, and that task is set about in the Bill. I welcome clause 43 wholeheartedly. Clause 30, on closed-circuit television, is a much-needed improvement and I commend the Government on bringing it forward. The


suggestion that we should bring in an extra amendment on the possession of child pornography is most welcome. I look forward to seeing the Government's proposals. Sorting out the law relating to the detention of children is also highly to be commended.
Clause 32 causes me the most unease in the light of my recent experiences in Cleveland. I should like to consider the scale of the problem. National estimates provided by the NSPCC are that 6,330 children were sexually abused last year. The MORI poll, which has often been quoted, failed to distinguish between what might be called active and passive abuse. The definition was very wide and, in an article in The Times last year, Roger Worcester, chairman of MORI, took the poll to show that one female child in 150 was sexually abused by her father and that only one child in 220 suffered sexual intercourse by a father or brother.
Our next difficulty is bringing to book those responsible for these horrible crimes. My hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have shown tremendous zeal in this respect. Calls have been made by many bodies which deal with children for a range of reforms to increase the conviction rate. One important reform that is not included in the Bill, and which should be, is a provision to lay a statutory duty on social service departments to consult the police and inform them of any relevant facts before action is taken to rescue a child.
The use of a live video link in court would also be a major advantage to the prosecution of these cases. The trauma to the young child, now separated from his or her parents, can only be heightened by having to reveal all the humiliating details in open court. Last year, we saw the terrible prospect of a trial collapsing because the children were too upset to give evidence. All the court could do to improve the situation was for the barristers and counsel to take their wigs off.
Children's and adult survivors' most vivid memories of these occasions are that facing the perpetrator and his lawyer is their worst ever experience. We must achieve a balance, however, and not tip the scales of justice out of line. We cannot allow children's evidence to go unchallenged and we cannot refuse a defendant his right of cross-examination.
We should for a moment imagine that some of my constituents in Cleveland are absolutely right — a possibility that is being determined by a judicial inquiry. We should put ourselves in the position of an ordinary loving family man whose children are thought, for some reason—a denunciation or a faulty medical diagnosis—to be abused. He might be a doctor, teacher or vicar. The accusation is made. He must, in the name of justice, be given a fair trial. He will suffer suspension from his job and be reviled by his neighbours, his friends and perhaps even his wife. The children are taken away. He wakes up one day to find himself in a situation not dissimilar to Kafka in "The Trial". That is what is alleged to have happened in my constituency.
We should imagine what will happen when, having legislated safeguards into the system, we have also removed the ability to cross-examine the accusing child. We should imagine what would happen if we did not build in the legal safeguards proposed by the Bill. The uncorroborated evidence of the child would be accepted as the sole evidence on which somebody could be convicted. Would we not be moving from Kafka to Arthur Miller?
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said last summer when we met two anguished parents together, "This is Salem." He was wrong, but I fear that, with children being able, unchallenged or insufficiently challenged, to accuse parents of vile and hateful things, and with social workers prepared to read and believe papers which say that children do not lie about things that they have not experienced, we might indeed move to Salem. Will we then be back with a protection from false prosecution Bill to remove this anomaly next year? I hope not.
We must press forward with all due diligence to catch and successfully prosecute child molesters. I welcome many of the features of the Bill which will help to do that, but I warn the House against overlooking essential safeguards in pursuit of desirable ends. I warn the Committee against turning children to behave like Abigail Williams in a witch hunt which could burn the innocent as well as the guilty.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Some of us who served on the Standing Committee on the previous Criminal Justice Bill feel what is almost a sense of déjà vu. No doubt, if I am lucky enough to be selected to serve on the Committee on this Bill, I shall see one or two new faces on the Government side, but I do not expect to see too much of the Home Secretary, who appeared only towards the end of the previous Bill.
That is no criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. However, some effort was made to improve the original Bill through the spirit of that Committee. Various Ministers accepted a number of Opposition amendments, and, indeed, often cross-party amendments, and a number of ideas were taken on board. I had hoped that, during the long summer that lay behind us, the Home Secretary and other Ministers would have looked again at what was said in that Committee, and thought again about some of the ideas that it discussed.
Over the past couple of months, I have floated one or two ideas on sentencing policy, in the hope that they will be taken up when the Bill continues its passage through the two Houses. It contains a number of features which are, sad to say, retrogressive, rather than progressive. When there are more than 50,000 people in prison and more than 10,000 on remand, we ought to take the opportunity to ask ourselves why that is. Why do we appear to be the most criminal country in Europe? Why do we incarcerate more people, for longer periods, in quite appalling conditions, than any other country in the civilised world? Is it, perhaps, that we have got our sentencing wrong?
You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a few months ago, when a certain well-known jockey obtained his just deserts for trying to defraud the taxman, I suggested that there might be another way of sentencing him: it seemed an appropriate example at the time. I agree with everything that has been said today about vicious and violent criminals. They deserve to go to prison, and they deserve to go there for a long time, as do those involved in sexual offences. I am not speaking of them; the statistics show them to form a minority of the offenders who are to be found in our prisons. Research has shown that the vast majority are the thieves, the fraudsters, the car thieves, burglars and other non-violent persons.
For many such people, the most effective part of a prison sentence is the first 14 or 28 days. I suggested 28


days in a recent speech, and promptly received a shoal of letters from experts, who told me that the first 14 days were the bit that hurt. The remainder of the sentence is not constructive, as was said here earlier. All that it does is teach the chap to commit, perhaps, a different type of crime. He is kept in conditions in which he learns nothing, and his family is supported by the state. We keep him there at enormous cost, and then chuck him back again at the end.
Why should we not try to be constructive? If the short, nasty taste of the prison cell is required, let the sentence be for, say, 18 months, but with only 28 days to be served. During the balance, the offender would be expected either to repay the victim of his crime—after all, the victims are the people whom we mostly forget in the administration of criminal justice—or, perhaps, to repay society through an extended community work programme.
It can be done, it would not require much alteration of our laws, but it would at least be positive sentencing. During the period that the offender spent in the community, under, as it were, the sword of Damocles—the combined, rather than the single, sentence — he would be expected to put back into society what he had taken out, and, at the same time, to maintain his family. The probation service is quite capable of administering such a sentencing policy.
That is constructive, but it is not very populist. It is populist to call for longer and longer sentences. I agree with much of what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said — for example, about extending to life imprisonment the sentence imposed for possession of a firearm in the course of a robbery or other indictable offence. Where, in that case, would be the point in not shooting? The sentence would be the same either way. That is silly and will not achieve anything. Judges, of course, do not have to impose certain sentences; they are quite capable of imposing the appropriate sentence. The current sentencing powers of the judiciary are wide enough for that.
Over the weekend, I have to admit that I read The Mail on Sunday, which mentioned the idea of tagging. We did not receive a clear and definitive answer on that today. [Interruption.] Ah, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Naughties are happening. The Minister has indicated that he will answer the question on tagging.
It would be nice if we knew at the beginning of a debate what would come up during it. Surely the purpose of a debate is for the House to be able to give its views. If the Minister is to make some suggestions about tagging, I shall be glad to give way to him for a moment so that the matter can be placed before the House and before other persons.

Mr. Hurd: Give us your view.

Mr. Bermingham: The Home Secretary asks for my view: he can have it. If the system is to be anything like the Massachussetts system, it is barmy. I took the trouble to go and have a look.
If "tagging" means a system of reporting, with a machine that is coded so that the telephone can pick up the code, I can see some sense in it. However, to confine people to their houses 24 hours a day for 12 months—if

I have understood The Mail on Sunday correctly — is frankly barmy. It is useless, and will achieve nothing. It is merely sending people to prison in their own homes.
The object of keeping people out of prison must surely be to reform them, educate them and lead them in another direction. I have no objection to people having to report at such and such an hour, or to a means of checking that they are ringing from where they say they are ringing—which could be achieved very easily by asking the telephone number of the works where they should be, and ringing them on that number. That may be too simple to be politically attractive, but the Americans seem to think it a better method than a magic bracelet worn around the arm, enabling the person to be contacted at an appropriate time.
I fear that we must wait until the Minister of State speaks at about half-past nine to learn the mysteries of what he proposes. I think it a little discourteous, if new proposals are to be made, for us to be told of them at the end of the debate, rather than during it. But old-fashioned manners are, I fear, a thing of the past.
Clause 128 deals with knives. Under the clause, the defence rather than the prosecution case must be proved. One of the grounds on which a defence can be proved, under subsection (4)(a), is that the knife is "for use at work". I suggest that the drafting of that tiny paragraph be looked at again. Let us suppose that a man takes his kitchen knife from his home to his car parked in the street, perhaps to deal with a problem in the upholstery, or with some screw or other tiny part in the ignition. He is technically not at work, so technically the defence goes. Perhaps the words "for work" rather than "at work" should be used. It is only a tiny amendment, but it may overcome that minor problem. We shall have to reconsider the drafting of the Bill with great care.
I wish to mention two other points. I welcome clause 41, which contains the retrial provision, but the powers of the Court of Appeal should have been widened in this respect a long time ago. I should have liked the provision to go a little wider. Perhaps we can discuss that in Committee, but the principle is welcome. It may prevent the occurrence of cases in which there has been a clear miscarriage of justice and people have had to go to the Court of Appeal several times. The classic example was the Cooper v. McMahon case in which the Home Secretary ultimately opened the doors and out they went, but such a situation should be avoided in the future. I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the Select Committee's reports on remands in custody and then to reconsider clause 139 which grants the power to remand in custody for up to 28 days, rather than up to eight days, as at present.
One of the saddest sights is to go to a prison at visiting time and watch the remand prisoners being visited by their wives and families. An even sadder sight is to end a trial, whether in a magistrates court or in a Crown court—I declare an interest as a practising barrister—and to see a man acquitted when he has been in custody for a long time.
It is time that we reconsidered the position with regard to theft. Of course the person accused of murder, rape and other serious offences must be remanded in custody, but there should be some way of reviewing the lesser offences and the remand period. When sentences are settled by a remand period, we must ask ourselves questions about how we deal with bail.
I note the provision in respect of bail hostels. I appreciate that an increase in the number of bail hostels may lead to fewer people being remanded in custody. I appreciate that, under section 20 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1979, it is proposed that trials now proceeding—

Mr. John Patten: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech with great care. On the issue of bail hostels, is he aware that, when the nine new bail hostels announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are fully occupied, it could mean that up to 900 people a year should be free of the need to be in gaol and should be in the bail hostels?

Mr. Bermingham: Yes, I am aware of that. I welcome the nine new bail hostels. Perhaps there should be more, given that there are more than 10,000 people on remand today, more than 500 of whom are in police stations. The situation is appalling and any improvement is welcome. There is no justification for more than 500 people being remanded in custody in police stations. The Home Secretary's predecessor gave an undertaking that they would be emptied and that no people would be remanded in custody in police stations.
The Home Secretary has made several attempts to improve the situation, including early release, but too many people are on remand and too many are receiving too long sentences. However, I shall not seek to trespass down that alleyway tonight.
I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and that, when it goes into Committee, Government supporters will approach it with an open mind, ready to make changes and to listen to arguments, not necessarily from the Opposition but from interested parties outside who often have much to offer. I hope that the Government will not set their mind against any ideas that will help to achieve the essential elements of a criminal justice system. Fairness is an essential part of such a system and leads to a conviction which is not challengeable. When that conviction occurs, the sentence should reflect both the crime and the needs of society and of the victim. If we can work towards that, we shall go somewhere, but I fear that the Bill contains many of the sins of previous legislation. Perhaps some of us will be lucky enough to have a second bite at the cherry, if we do not find the stone completely bare.

Mr. Chris Butler: I welcome the Bill and the strong warning that it will give to any knife-happy thugs. There is a stronger warning implicit in it than the one I read when I was in Florida last year in the code given to children before they start school. They are told that they
may not commit any criminal acts at the school. Bringing a gun, or another weapon such as a razor blade, ice pick, nunchakus"—
goodness knows what that is—
mace or any chemical or electric weapon will result in expulsion, as will selling alcoholic beverages or drugs, murder or rape.
I am sure that it will be a great consolation to the victim of murder or rape to know that the schoolchildren will be expelled.
I studied physical anthropology at university and I know that there is a credible theory that Neanderthal man never died out. Some inadequate people bolster their

inadequacy by the use of knives. They mistake the fear that they engender with their blades for the respect which they cannot secure. When they wield their blade, they believe that they are big, but in fact they are pygmies. They should be dissuaded from carrying their symbols of power. Some of them are rather dense and a couple of pints of lager can convert boastful bores into punchy paranoids.
Only last Saturday night, there was a stabbing in a disco in my constituency. A young man was stabbed twice and his life was saved only by the quick-witted action of Mr. Roy Aspinall, affectionately known as "Ocker", who put his fingers in the gaping wounds. The culprit was caught at the door and was found to have two flick knives. He should never have been carrying any knives at all. The message of the Bill should be not only that people who carry knives are inadequate but that they are mugs because the law will bear down on them if they are stupid enough to carry knives.
I welcome clause 34 and the right to refer unduly lenient sentences to a higher court. The knee-jerk reaction of the Opposition is to oppose this. They purport to represent the working class. I sometimes wonder how long it is since they were in a working-class club or pub and listened to the good sense that is occasionally talked over a few pints of bitter. The verdict of the ordinary man in the street about some of our daft, lenient sentences is very clear. Legal academics, too—Nigel Walker, for example—have been quick to point out that the one-sided English system is "quixotic". In 1965, the Donovan committee found that there was a strength in these arguments, but eventually it dismissed the idea because it was
a complete departure from our tradition.
In my view, tradition is an insufficient cause for not doing justice in these cases.
I have one reservation which I share to some extent with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), despite his rather disparaging remarks about Elliot Ness, whom I have always greatly admired. That reservation concerns the potential role of the press. Mostly, our attention is drawn to soft sentences by the press. There is a certain section of the press that wallows in the gutter. I trust that the Attorney-General will have an objective system of review, and that we shall not be subject to the "objectivity" that is associated with the denizens of the gutter.
The Bill is a response to popular concern about the surging crime rate. It is designed to strengthen the forces of law and order. It is an unashamed attempt to punish and deter more severely those who commit the more severe crimes, and to lessen the opportunities for malefactors to exploit the system as it stands.
The Labour party has heard that outcry as well. On 27 November 1986 the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) put forward his own solution. Predictably enough, it was the election of a Labour Government, to provide the policies
to unite the nation against crime.
and
to bring the British people together as partners against crimes."—[Official Report, 27 November 1986; Vol. 106, c. 484.]
—whatever that may mean. In the same speech, the right hon. Gentleman opposed the abolition of the right of peremptory challenge. He opposed the raising of the limit


on sentences for those who carry firearms in the commission of crime, and he opposed the referral of lenient sentences to higher courts.
We in the Conservative party are arguing that the balance in our criminal justice system should be turned further against the criminal. I may be reading the runes wrongly, but it seems to me that the Opposition tend to argue the case of the malefactor.
If the public are to judge the theme of partnership, and if they are to judge the way in which political parties approach that theme, we need to look at who partners whom — who partners whom in Manchester, not far from my constituency, where the ruling Labour group spends hundreds of thousands of pounds every year on its "Police Watch" magazine, which attacks the police, who partners whom on the Broadwater Farm estate, and who partners whom in the Lobbies tonight.

Mrs. Llin Golding: Since the Bill last appeared before the House for consideration, many words have been written, and indeed spoken, about the need to reconsider the law on the giving of evidence by children in courts. The emotion, anger and disgust expressed by so many people about the abuse of young children have led to a public outcry on the need to change the law.
It now falls to us to see that the laws can no longer be described as a child molesters' charter. We in the House have the opportunity in the Bill to change the law, to start to help not only those children, but their families and those convicted of abusing children, for if we cannot prosecute them and help them, how can we even begin to halt the increase in child abuse?
Much progress has been made in the past year. The attitude of many in the legal profession has changed. The Government have suggested that they are prepared to consider a change in the law on corroboration and video evidence, which is most welcome.
I followed with care and a great deal of interest the debate on the Bill in the other place, but I am far from satisfied that there is a full understanding of what needs to be done. However, I should like to pay tribute to the many Members in the other place who battled long and hard on the issue in an effort to convince the Government of the need for radical change.
To understand the giving of video evidence, we must first understand what a video link is. What it most certainly is not is a " closed circuit television", which was the amendment accepted in the other place. What it most certainly is is a "live audio-visual link", which is capable of being used as a means of communication during a trial and for the transmission of other sounds and images in connection with the trial — that is, without the intervention of another person to control or operate the system during the giving of evidence; and in such a manner that a witness giving evidence by means of the system may be seen at the trial throughout the giving of his evidence; and in such a manner as to permit the transmission to persons present at the trial of any sounds and images transmitted by means of the system. That is what a video link is and that is what I am reliably informed by

Datapoint UK, a firm that produces equipment for use in courts in more enlightened countries, is what it successfully does.
I should like to refer to the proposed changes on the corroboration of children's evidence. The Opposition welcome the Government's proposals, that the unsworn evidence of a child shall now be admissible in court, even if it is uncorroborated. The provision that the child has to understand the duty of speaking the truth, however, is a stumbling block to the giving of evidence by very young children. The essential point is that a child is capable of telling the truth virtually from the age when she or he can talk, but as the law stands the court will not listen to her story until she understands the concept of duty and truth, which could be not until she is very much older.
That a very young child is capable of giving truthful information is known by everyone who has dealt with young children. There is the well-documented case of the American girl of three who was abducted, assaulted and dropped in a cesspit to drown but survived to give a full account of her experiences, which her attacker eventually confirmed in every detail. Much research has been done, which comes to the conclusion that there is no relationship between a child's reliability in describing an event and the child's knowledge of the difference between the words "falsehood" and "truth".
In France, Germany and many states of the United States of America, child witnesses of all ages are listened to. It is right that their evidence is treated with caution, but it is right that in this country the courts should refuse to listen to a tiny child. I hope that the Government will give further consideration to that in Committee, for it is important that all evidence should be listened to.
I now refer to the use of audio-visual links. The Old Bailey case last September, when a nine-year-old child broke down in the witness box and was unable to give her evidence, resulting in 23 charges against the accused being dropped, has won the argument that to subject a child to such mental torture makes the law cruel and unjust. I look forward to seeing the Government's proposals for audio-visual links, which I hope will allow evidence to be given by children in all cases where there is a likelihood of their being intimidated when giving evidence.

Mr. John Patten: I am following closely the hon. Lady's thought-provoking speech. I she aware that one of the things that has disappointed us in the Home Office is that, having circulated a consultation document on exactly that issue, we have had, alas, fewer responses from those who might be interested in the correct conduct of audio-visual cross-examination than we had hoped? We know the hon. Lady's views. If she can do anything to encourage others to make their views known during the Committee stage we shall be grateful.

Mrs. Golding: I thank the Minister for that information. It is the quality that counts, not the numbers. I assure him that the quality was good when I asked for support on audio-visual links. I shall not go through the full list now, but if the hon. Gentleman wants the evidence of the quality, he may have it.
The proposal that very young children should be allowed to give evidence through a fit person who is acceptable to the court would be in the interests of the accused and the child. A tiny child is likely to dry up completely if questioned directly by a stranger, however


sympathetic that stranger may be or however sympathetically the questions may be put. If the question is put through another person—the so-called child examiner—whom the child knows and trusts, it is sensible to suppose that the child would find it easier to understand and answer the questions. It should not do away with the right of defence counsel to question the child directly should the defence so wish. I hope that the Minister will see the sense in the provision of a child examiner and include it in the Bill.
I shall now deal with the proposals for the admittance of video tapes in the giving of evidence by children. I cannot understand how, with agreed safeguards, anyone could object to such a proposal. Surely it must be acceptable that a video recording, made as soon as practicable after the events, is likely to be of greater use in the search for the truth than the cross-examination of a child months after the events, when much effort will have been made by concerned people to help the child come to terms with what has happened. Surely it must be possible for the police and social services, with the appropriate training, to obtain a statement that would be admissible in evidence. The Nottinghamshire constabulary and those working on the Bexley experiment are two groups that have done much work on the subject. The reports that they have presented have convinced me that it could be done and that a code of practice could be drawn up.
It would be essential that the video recording be available in complete form, with nothing added, omitted or altered, and the accused person and his legal representatives should have the right to inspect and view it. In Texas, 221 out of 235 accused people have pleaded guilty having seen the video recording of the child's evidence, thus saving the child the ordeal of a court hearing. If video tapes are not to be admissible as evidence, more children will suffer the trauma of court hearings, which cannot be what the Minister wants.
The change that is proposed is for the video tape to be used as the child's statement to the court, and that cross-examination would be directed to what she or he has said on the tape. It is intended to be used in the same manner as a written statement.
I should like to think that, in the Bill, we shall take the opportunity to change the law, to do away with the accusation of having a child molester's charter, to help young children and to support the family. We must seek the truth to find the answer to protect the child and the accused.

Mr. Michael Irvine: One's approach to a Second reading debate of a Bill that contains no fewer than 154 clauses and 14 schedules must inevitably be selective. I propose to concentrate on three issues, the first being the extension of the powers of the Court of Appeal as set out in clauses 34 and 41 of the Bill.
In his speech, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) attacked clause 34 on the basis that it would lead to a convicted offender being sentenced twice and having to serve the longest of those two sentences. That argument — the so-called double-jeopardy argument —is fatally flawed. The issue is not whether the offender should serve the longer of the two sentences: or for that matter whether he should serve the

shorter. What is important is that the sentence that the offender serves is a just one. Clause 34 will help to ensure that the sentence he receives is a just one.
Reform enabling the Court of Appeal to increase unduly lenient sentences is long overdue. Standards of sentencing by the judiciary are generally very high. Occasionally however, even the best of judges can make a mistake. If they get it wrong and pass an unduly severe sentence, the matter can be put right by the Court of Appeal; justice is done and the anxiety of the public is allayed. It seems absurd to argue that, if a judge gets it wrong the other way and passes an unduly lenient sentence, the matter cannot be put right. When that happens, not merely is justice not done, it manifestly is seen not to be done. Not only is the victim of the crime wronged and resentful, but public confidence in the judiciary and the legal system is undermined.
The hue and cry among the media that follows a sentence that is perceived to be unduly lenient brings intolerable and undesirable pressures to bear on the judge in question and may deter other judges from acts of mercy in instances where they are merited. It may deter judges from passing lenient sentences that, in the particular circumstances of the case, are proper and right.
I see clause 34 lessening the hue and cry among the media. It will help to maintain public confidence in the legal system and, above all, it will lead to greater consistency in sentencing. It will lead to better justice, and to better justice being seen to be done.
Clause 41 complements clause 34 admirably. It will enable the Court of Appeal to order a retrial where previously, because of a misdirection or because some technicality has not been observed, a guilty verdict had to be set aside and an acquittal directed, even though the facts of the case pointed strongly towards the guilt of the accused.
Clause 112 will abolish the right of peremptory challenge. On this issue I part company strongly with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). The peremptory challenge is used regularly in the hope of obtaining a more sympathetic jury for a defendant. It is used to obtain not a representative jury but an unrepresentative jury.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a recent report that showed that in 45 per cent. of cases it made no difference whatsoever?

Mr. Irvine: What about the 55 per cent. in which it did?
Another important factor that cannot be separated from the peremptory challenge is the growth of jury-nobbling — the practice of identifying members of the jury who it is thought might be pliable and then bringing to bear one or more kinds of pressure or inducement on them. Last summer, the Metropolitan police's assistant commissioner and head of special operations, Mr. Dellow, drew attention to the development of this problem. He claimed—it was reported prominently in The Times—that the Mafia and other organised gangs were employing professional jury-nobblers to pervert the course of justice and obtain acquittals.
We would be foolish not to heed the warning. With the growth of organised crime and the massive resources behind some of the international drug-smuggling and other criminal rings, that sort of pressure could be extremely great and could be a far greater danger and


threat to the maintenance of trial by the jury system than the abolition of the right to peremptory challenge. I say that abolition of the right to peremptory challenge will make it just that more difficult for such gangs to operate effectively.

Mr. Archer: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's reasoning. On the face of it, abolition of the right to peremptory challenge would make it more likely that people would attempt to nobble juries.

Mr. Irvine: Not at all. If peremptory challenges are used to secure juries that are thought to be more sympathetic to a defendant, and if that assessment is accurate, it follows that such juries may be more pliable and a much more acceptable target for the nobblers who are employed by criminal gangs. That is an important factor when we are considering the effectiveness of the jury system. I contend that the abolition of the peremptory challenge will make it just that much more difficult for gangs such as the Mafia and other international drug-running organisations to pervert the course of justice by bringing improper pressure to bear on juries.
Clause 128 introduces the offence of having with one in a public place an article with a point or blade. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke about the appalling rise in the incidence of robbery in London and the increasing degree to which knives are being used in such robberies. They were strong words and I was glad to hear them. I was glad earlier when it was announced that this special offence would be included in the Bill.
However, subsection (5) states:
A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
So the penalty for the offence of carrying a knife in a public place is to be a fine. That is a slap on the wrist, and a limp one at that. Knife-carrying is a dangerous and reprehensible habit and it needs to be stopped in its tracks. Deterrent sentences are needed that will trumpet out that to carry a knife carries the risk of a severe sentence from the courts. I hope that this flaw is remedied in Committee. It is a flaw on the face of what is otherwise, on the whole, an admirable Bill.

Mr. John Fraser: Anyone who represents a constituency such as Brixton lives constantly with the problem of crime. I have always taken an interest in these matters because I want to represent the interests of those who should be able to live their lives peacefully and who do not deserve to have that right interrupted by assaults either on their person or on their property.
I have learnt over the years that the battle against crime is won by partnership, co-operation and confidence within the community in the proper enforcement of the law and the judicial system. There were times when we had considerable doubts about the way in which the magistracy behaved. That was partly because of selection and partly because of inopportune comments that were made about defendants and, sometimes, prosecution witnesses. We worked hard to overcome those difficulties and the changes that have taken place since the Scarman report have done much to reinforce co-operation between the community at large, the police and others who are concerned with the enforcement of law and order.
I think that there is agreement on both sides of the House that the peremptory challenge provides an opportunity for a defendant to challenge a jury in a limited way to ensure that it is reasonably representative of the defendant's peers. We know of the deep injustices that took place in the southern states of America when black people were tried by juries composed of only white people. I have in mind the outcry that would occur if a leading member of the National Front were charged with an offence of racial harassment in Brick lane and tried by a jury composed entirely of people of Bangladeshi descent.
If a defendant is tried by a jury which appears on the face of it to be unsympathetic or antipathetic, there will be a lack of belief in the effectiveness of our judicial system. It will be all the better if the traditional right of peremptory challenge, which was there partly to increase belief in the effectiveness of our judicial system, is preserved.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is it not undesirable that a member of the National Front should be in a position, by exercising the right of peremptory challenge, to remove a coloured juryman?

Mr. Fraser: It is much better that one guilty man should be acquitted than that several innocent people should be convicted. That, however, is not the central issue. It is vital that people should believe in the credibility of the judicial system, and I am sure that overall the removal of the right of peremptory challenge will weaken confidence in the system rather than reinforce it. In the broad run of cases, removal of that right is likely to have an adverse effect rather than a favourable one.
My constituents, along with others, are much concerned about the carrying of knives. Reform of the law has been urged by the Lambeth police community consultative council and by an organisation called Why Helpless Youngsters—WHY—which has campaigned in my constituency and throughout London.
There has been co-operation between the consultative council, WHY and the local authority. Indeed, the local authority has mounted exhibitions of dangerous knives at local libraries. We have reached a consensus in my community that something needs to be done urgently about the carrying of knives. This is partly because of the increase in the number of robberies that take place with the use of knives in which terror is struck even more deeply into the heart of the victim and partly because of the number of altercations that result in death or serious injury that might have been comparatively unimportant if knives had not been carried. For three weeks running in my constituency last year persons were killed as a result of fights with knives. In two instances the circumstances did not include the proposed commission of a crime. One involved an argument about a traffic accident, and the carrying of a knife resulted in a death.
There is widespread concern about the carrying of knives and the deaths and injuries which have been the consequence of it. It would be idle to pretend that there is not some fashion in the carrying of knives. There are some who believe that it is right to carry a knife and fashionable to do so. There are many who within their own peer group do not meet any expression of disapproval because they carry a knife. In fact, the reverse is sometimes the position.
There are two principal reasons why people do not commit crimes. First, they believe it to be wrong to do so. The commission of a crime would offend their consciences. There are many who would feel a sense of guilt if they committed a crime. Secondly, there is a less powerful barrier against crime. It is the belief that the individual is likely to he caught and punished, even if he does not believe that he is doing something that is morally wrong. After a while, if the law is reinforced, the fact that a person is likely to be caught and punished gradually becomes part of his consciousness.
That is true of drunken driving. At one time, there was a general tolerance of drinking and driving, but, gradually, the idea has got through to people—as we saw with the anti-social habit of smoking— that not only does one run the risk of being punished, but it is thoroughly wrong to do such a thing. We have to reinforce the law so that there is a greater chance of people being caught and punished as well as greater social disapprobation at the carrying of knives.
I welcome some of the Government's measures, principally the powers to outlaw weapons that cannot possibly have any legitimate use. A series of lethal weapons — such as death stars, flails and sharpened credit cards — are shown in some magazines. By no stretch of the imagination can those weapons have any use except an unlawful one. The Government propose to list those items in a statutory instrument to make carrying them an absolute offence, without any defence available to the carrier. I understand that the magazines that advertise those items will cease to do so not only because the pressure of the Advertising Standards Authority code will be brought to bear but because it will be a criminal offence to supply or sell them. I welcome the Government's proposal and do not think that there is any dispute about it.
There is a difficulty with some weapons—principally knives, as well as chisels and other instruments—that may be carried for a legitimate reason or an illegitimate reason. The Bill is deficient in defining a weapon that is inherently dangerous as having a blade of more than 3 in. I have seen some deadly weapons—some of which I had exhibited in the House—with blades of less than 3 in. I have seen many more weapons with longer blades. Those knives may not be on the list prescribed by the Home Secretary but they cannot possibly have any useful purpose. Other instruments, such as kitchen knives, may have a use which is unlawful or lawful.
I should like the Bill to include a number of measures. Of course there must be a defence of reasonable excuse, including use of the instrument at work, but the defence as defined in the Bill may let people out. Almost everyone has heard of the tragic stabbing of Police Constable Hammond, who while trying to prevent a robbery in a south London shop was stabbed with a kitchen knife by a young lad who worked as a kitchen assistant. Undoubtedly, that boy had the knife for use at work. People who are accused of having a knife on them often tell me that they work in a kitchen and need the knife at work, that they work as electricians and need the knife to strip cable or that they work in a garage and need the knife to cut upholstery in a vehicle. But that alone as a defence is not sufficient. The important point is whether the knife can be readily used at the time a person is found with it.
A Stanley knife is fairly lethal. If I had one locked in my tool case in the back of my car, that is one thing, but

if I have it in my pocket at a dance, that is different. An ingredient of a person's defence should be that the knife was not for immediate use—for example, it was used as part of his work of cutting hedges or pruning trees. If, say a Stanley knife was kept in a tool case or some other container, which meant that it could not be put to immediate use, that ought to be a defence. If a Stanley knife, which has an ambiguous use—it can be used to injure and threaten people as well as for a legitimate purpose—is ready for use at the time it is found in a public place, there should be a presumption of guilt, subject to any other defence of reasonable use.
Such is the widespread use of knives in my part of London that I believe that it is wrong that any shop should sell any knives or sharp instruments to a person under 1 8, and most certainly they should not be sold to a person under 16. We worried for a long time about the sale of glue and eventually concluded that we would make it an offence to sell to a person under 16 something that was inherently dangerous. Public disapproval of the carrying of knives will be reinforced and buying knives will be a more serious matter if we as a legislature say that it will be illegal to sell a knife to a person under 18. It may be bought by an adult but not by a child.
We should make it an offence for a shopkeeper to sell the weapon as well as for a young person to buy it. Such a provision would not occasion any great difficulty for those who legitimately want a knife or other sharp instrument for their work or hobby but would introduce a sufficient barrier to the acquisition of knives to reinforce society's disapproval of the carrying of those weapons.
I should also like to outlaw the selling of knives by some shops and magazines when the use of those knives is much more likely to be for an illicit than for a legal purpose. In a tool shop, Stanley knives, chisels and other sharp knives are on sale in the context of tools and other goods likely to be used for a legitimate purpose. In the kitchen department of Peter Jones, Harrods or a store in Brixton, kitchen knives are sold in the context of pots, pans, glassware and kitchenware and an atmosphere where they are likely to be used for a legitimate purpose. I concede that a person who wanted to get hold of a sharp kitchen knife would go to such a store and buy it, but at least it would be sold in a lawful context.
In some shops in south London and other parts of the country lethal knives are on sale in such a context that the reason for buying them can only be for the sake of having knives rather than using them for legitimate purposes. 1 see no justification for encouraging such sales in an area where crimes involving the use of knives are numerous. Under the terms of the Bill, a person who goes into such a shop, buys a knife and is caught on the pavement outside will invariably commit an offence. Such a person need only cross the shop's threshold to commit an offence. It is wrong that the person on one side of the threshold who carries a dangerous knife commits an offence, whereas the person on the other side who encourages its sale can do so with impunity. In those circumstances, it is unlikely that the knife will be sold for anything other than an aggressive purpose.
On the balance of convenience, I should like the police, in co-operation with local authorities, to have the power to cause such a shopkeeper to discontinue the sale of knives. Even more important, I should like the sale of knives through mail order services to be banned, except


when they are sold as part of a set of tools or are likely to be used for a legitimate purpose. These are the matters that concern my constituents.
I said at the beginning of my speech that the enforcement of the law and the working of a peaceful community depend on co-operation. I can understand the point of using stop-and-search powers when a crime has been committed and a search takes place in the immediate proximity of the place in which the crime has been committed—for instance, in a dance hall or at a football match. In such cases, there is no subjective test; a crime has been committed involving a knife or other weapon, and it is matter of searching within the proximity. But we must be careful about the use of powers of search in circumstances that would merely widen the use of search and perhaps create enmity and distrust in the community.
I am doubtful about the extra powers the Bill would provide, and they must be used with great circumspection if the law is to be respected and if we are to carry the weight of the community behind the new restrictions that—on the whole—we are quite properly introducing.

8 pm

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: This is the sort of Bill about which many of us have had a lot of correspondence from constituents. It contains so many different clauses that people have suggested that it should also contain other things which are not to be found in it now. However, I shall confine my remarks to the issue of the victims of crime and the parts of the Bill that try to help such victims and their families.
It is important to consider who the victim is. He tends to be generous towards the person who perpetrated the crime. He is often quite undemanding of revenge against the criminal. That means that a greater responsibility is incumbent on society to ensure that whatever is done is done to help the victim; and that a crime does not result in too much deep consideration of assistance to the criminal, but rather in consideration of the victim.
Obviously there are ways in which we can assist. I am heartened to see the growth in many areas of the country of victim support schemes. In the main they have been most helpful and have arisen out of a genuine wish on the part of the community in which the victim lives to be of help in the immediate aftermath of appalling incidents such as violent crimes, and to see that psychological help, for instance, is given to the victim. It is important to establish whether a loss has been sustained and what can be done directly and quickly to assist.
However, although such schemes are successful, we owe it to ourselves to bear in mind the needs of the victim. I am pleased that the Bill has, to a large extent, taken matters further than before—in relation to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the compensation of victims by the courts and the confiscation of a criminal's assets, which is an important feature of compensating the victims of crime.
It is difficult to know how to strike a happy medium, but although the criminal injuries compensation scheme has been in existence for 23 years, it always had about it a level of discretion which was undesirable. It was felt that its discretion might not be always exercised in favour of a claimant, for one reason or another, which was not always wholly fair. So the absolute right to receive

compensation, on production of proof of the basic requirements of probability, seems immensely important as a replacement for that discretion.
Another important new introduction is that there will now be a direct relationship between the offender and the victim through the work of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. It is vital that, whenever possible, offenders should be responsible for the cost of compensating their victims. Various ideas have been put forward, and victims do not necessarily want to see the person who perpetrated the crime against them. That, I think, would be wrong; but they can know the perpetrator of the crime through the compensation that they receive, seeing that there is a direct link and that the person who committed the crime against them or their property will be responsible for the compensation. That is an excellent proposal, which deserves our support.
For many years I have practised as a solicitor. My contact with clients was not usually through the criminal courts but had largely to do with matters of compensation. I have found that victims are loth to make claims for compensation. When one examines the Bill's provisions for compensation orders being made, it is marvellous to see that in future reasons will have to be given if no compensation order is made in appropriate cases. Previously the onus was on the victim to claim, which was wrong. Society has an obligation to see that compensation orders are made without them having to be requested by people who might not wish to do so for various reasons.
Although the confiscation of assets does not necessarily directly assist a victim, it is very important. In this country there is an attitude of mind which says that, for too long, criminals—especially professional criminals—have been able to get away with their crimes. They are being caught and, because of the increase in police force manpower, they will continue to be caught in even larger numbers; but there has always been a feeling that such people have been able to serve out their sentences and then find their pot of gold when they come out of prison, living happily for the rest of their lives, while the person who lost because of the crime—I suggest that we all lose because of these crimes —must continue as before. He may not live particularly well, while the criminals live it up in the sunshine in some foreign country.
That is unacceptable, and it was right that the law should be extended to ensure that the confiscation of assets on a pre-trial basis, for instance, should become less of a discretionary matter, and that a stronger power should be available to the courts to do that. That will give many people much more confidence in our judicial system and our system of punishment.
I said at the beginning that this was a Bill that could have covered many things. Something that I would have liked it to cover—I hope that something to this effect will be brought forward at some point—was that some consideration should be given to providing powers that would allow us to prosecute someone when there was a suspicion of his having committed war crimes. At present, many such people cannot be dealt with properly. There are many victims of such people both in Britain and elsewhere who look to us to try to consider, even though we are discussing war crimes, some way in which to bring these people to book, preferably under the British system of justice. For all its faults, our system of justice is an example to the rest of the world and is much followed. The Bill will enhance our reputation for justice.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I have listened to many of the speeches and it seems that many hon. Members have had the opportunity to debate an earlier Bill. I may be at some disadvantage in that this is the first time that I have been able to speak on this Bill. Other Members have had one bite of the cherry and have made some progress in amending an earlier measure. I am aware that the Bill has already been in another place, where it was amended. I am hopeful that in the lively debate we might get in Committee further amendments will be made.
An Opposition Member spoke about what he called the philosophy that underlies the Government's view of the Bill. Some provisions commend themselves to me and to my hon. Friends, but its fundamental philosophy is flawed. That is because the Government seem to believe that increased prosecution powers and increased sentencing powers are in themselves a way of arresting crime and preventing people from re-offending. That is a fundamentally flawed philosophy because one must look at other issues.
This debate takes place against the background of a substantially increasing prison population. It is unacceptable that the proportion of people who reoffend is very high, and that, proportionately, the prison population in the United Kingdom is much higher than in any other EC country. It is a sad reflection of our society that six out of 10 male offenders and four out of 10 women offenders leaving gaol are back behind bars within two years. It is a further sad reflection that two thirds of young offenders are reconvicted within two years of release.
I confirm the Opposition claim that the number of people on remand in prison is unacceptably high. The conditions in many of our remand centres are intolerable. I am afraid that the matters addressed by the Government in the Bill do not directly address those issues. We cannot solve crime merely by shifting the balance in favour of the state or by increasing sentences. As I have said, it involves much wider issues, such as looking at the conditions that breed so much despair, violence and crime in the urban areas and the deprived rural areas.
I shall now deal with some specific aspects of the Bill. First, on extradition, the removal of the prima facie rule is a controversial provision. If we are to have a system of justice under which anybody who appears before a Crown court has first appeared before a magistrates court in which the examining magistrate has had to be satisfied that the defendant should answer a charge in the Crown court, then that system should also apply to people who go to other countries to face charges and to citizens of the countries of Britain who face charges elsewhere.
We seem to be adopting double standards and ought to have the same approach to offences that have taken place here as we have to offences that take place elsewhere. Therefore, if in extradition proceedings we ask an examining magistrate merely to be a rubber stamp at the behest of the country seeking extradition, it is a sad day for justice. I should like to see amendments withdrawing that clause, and I hope that the progress made in another place to temper these provisions will be continued in Committee.
I should like to deal with a specific issue on the proposals about evidence, especially the increased reliance on the use of written statements and reports. That could be construed as another example of the interests of the

prosecution overriding the interests of the citizen who appears before the court. The Law Society is questioning the need for these provisions in these terms because they may well be irrelevant in the light of section 68 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which deals with certain aspects of written evidence.
The Bill introduces the possibility of written documents and reports being used in evidence without calling the maker or author of those statements or reports. I can say from experience that much use is currently made of written statements and documents in our courts and this saves a considerable amount of time. In magistrates courts, many committal proceedings are popularly known these days as paper committals because the examining magistrates will consider only paper statements. Even in later Crown court trials, unless the defence has made a request for a witness to be present, the statement of that witness can be read.
I know of many instances in magistrates courts and Crown courts of the increasing use of written statements. The main criticism of this provision is that in certain cases it reduces and limits the right of a defence counsel or solicitor to request the attendance of the maker of a statement or report. As some hon. Members have said, many statements and reports can be extremely controversial. Therefore, in the final analysis each defendant must have the right to call any witness to give evidence, especially in cases where the defendant is in court on a criminal charge.

Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that in every case, either in a magistrates court on committal or in a Crown court on a jury trial, counsel or solicitor representing the defence has the right, having seen the papers, to decide to call a witness. There is adequate safeguard for the defence and now, as a consequence of legislation, there is disclosure of all papers in a magistrates; court if that is requested. Perhaps in the light of the present situation the hon. Gentleman would reconsider what he has said.

Mr. Jones: I have read with great interest the deliberations that took place on the Bill in another place. The Government, in pronouncing on the measure in the other place, envisaged the situation where witnesses were not available because they had absconded abroad, when the judge could decide that the statement could be admitted without challenge. That is a retrograde step and should not be allowed.
I accept parts of the provision on sentencing, particularly those for increasing maximum sentences for offences of cruelty to young persons and offences of insider dealings. With many other hon. Members, I object to the extension of the maximum penalty for firearms offences to life imprisonment. I have listened to the eloquent contributions of hon. Members and hon. and learned Members who have experience of cases involving firearms in the Crown court. It is sensible to say that if there is the same sentence for carrying a firearm as for using it, the person carrying the firearm may use it to abscond and will face the same sentence whether he used it or not. The Police Federation has expressed concern about the proposal, on the ground that to provide the same maximum penalty for carrying a firearm as for firing it would disregard proportionality between one and another.
I welcome the provisions on compensation orders, particularly the placing of the Criminal Injuries


Compensation Board on a statutory footing. My hon. Friends and I welcome the further strengthening of the compensation provisions, because this is an important element of sentencing and should be used far more effectively by the courts. It is distressing that prosecuting counsel, solicitors and magistrates are often reluctant to use the powers and to inform victims and injured parties of their rights. Very often they are advised, even in circumstances where a compensation order could be made, to pursue the matter through the civil courts, which leads to greater distress, expense and delay. I would like to see more use made of compensation orders and to see the Bill strengthened in this regard.
One of the most contentious parts of the Bill is the abolition of the right of peremptory challenges of jurors. Many hon. Members have expressed their disagreement to the abolition of this basic and fundamental right. I ask myself: if the right has existed and served the legal system for so many years, why should it now be right to abolish it? A defendant might be prejudiced by having to show cause, yet a defendant has the right to have a jury which is representative of the community in terms of the race, age or sex of the defendant, and that right should continue.
During my intervention I sought to make the point that a recent survey showed that where the right of peremptory challenge had been used, 46 per cent. of defendants were acquitted, and where it had not been used 45 per cent. of defendants had been acquitted, so it does not seem, as Conservative Members have argued, that the right favours the defendants, because it does not have that effect. Not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done. Defendants, having been given the right, should be entitled to think that their trial is fair.
I have tried to deal briefly with many issues in the Bill. I hope that in Committee we shall have the opportunity further to strengthen the Bill and to withdraw some of the contentious issues. I hope that at the end of the day the Minister, having listened to the many contributions, will reconsider some of the most controversial aspects of the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise some points on the Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friends in the Home Office for producing a forward-looking and progressive Bill. I will not detain the House by discussing its many clauses. Prior to the last election, I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill 1987, on which this Bill is based, and voted in favour of many clauses.
I welcome some of the new clauses, particularly those on possession of knives and offensive weapons, which are very necessary. There is good evidence from a study carried out in Scotland of the need for some form of stop-and-search legislation, particularly allied to knives, which will be a major preventive measure and will make our streets safer.
In the previous Bill, the clauses on child abuse provided that children could give evidence by video link. Those of us who have been involved in cases where children have been the victims of crime are well aware that young children find it traumatic to give evidence in open court, particularly on crimes of violence or sexual crimes, when

they have difficulty repeating the details of the incident. It is important to do everything we can to soften the trauma of that experience, and the Bill is a move towards that.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) commented on the taking of videos of children, and perhaps the Government will consider that that could be a positive move. The video could be taken immediately after the complaint is made, so that the jury will be able to see how the complaint was made and the effect of the crime upon the child. The normal course of cross-examination could follow.

Mr. John Patten: Does not my hon. Friend, who is an expert in these matters, feel that a recording taken essentially for investigative reasons by the police, but perhaps also for therapeutic reasons by medical authorities, is a different animal from the evidence that a court should have in front of it? In addition, it would not spare the child, quite rightly, from cross-examination.

Mr. Hind: I take my hon. Friend's point; it would be wrong if the child were not cross-examined. Any suggestion that a video of the evidence should be taken and presented to the court without being tested would be wholly wrong, and I certainly would not support any move in that direction. Whatever happens, the defendant's counsel must have the right to test the evidence.
I support the move to allow a child to give unsworn evidence which could result in a conviction, because in many cases of abuse the child is the only witness and is not capable of giving sworn evidence, so the removal of the need for corroboration would open the door to examine and convict people who commit these most horrible offences. However, I press Ministers to ensure that the judge makes it clear to the jury that there are dangers in convicting on uncorroborated evidence. I hope that that will be part of their thinking when these matters are debated in Committee.
The Opposition's third criticism involves the increase to a life sentence of the penalty for carrying a firearm during a crime. I accept some of the criticisms, but one must not underestimate the deterrent effect, particularly on young unsophisticated criminals, of realising that if they take a firearm to commit an offence, their punishment will be life imprisonment. They will know that, because of the way in which our sentencing system operates, that will not be life imprisonment in the strict sense, but it will be a deterrent.
We must not undermine our deterrents with intellectual arguments which appeal to Members of Parliament, but do not appeal in the same way to those who will involve themselves in such offences. Having defended many young men who have gone into post offices with firearms, I am sure that if they had known that the likely outcome was a sentence of imprisonment, they would not have done it.
What we need in the Bill is a new sentencing manifesto and I hope that the Government will consider that in future. We have begun the process. I welcome the introduction of the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal through the auspices of the Attorney-General. Many of us in Committee on the previous Bill argued long and hard for that course of action and I am pleased that my hon. Friends have accepted our argument.

Mr. John Patten: We are a listening Government.

Mr. Hind: I take my hon. Friend's point that this is, indeed, a listening Government.
My one reservation about the proposal is the suggestion that the matter should go through the Attorney-General. I have always felt that the role of the Attorney-General is difficult. On the one hand, he is the Government's adviser and, on the other, he is the head of the prosecution service. The danger in his being head of the prosecution service and being answerable to Members of Parliament is that circumstances could arise in which hon. Members jump to their feet and say to the Attorney-General, "What will you do about the case of Snooks at Grimsby Crown court? He got only six months and he should have got two years." I am sure that some of us have certain hon. Members in mind and we do not want to bring that sort of question into the political arena. I press my hon. Friends to consider introducing a division between the judicial and executive functions of the Attorney-General. We should not put the two together.
The one way to deal with that is by giving the power either to the Crown prosecutor in each region or to the Director of Public Prosecutions. A code of practice could be laid down by the Court of Appeal by direction or by the Attorney-General. Everything would then operate within those guidelines and could be seen. In that way we would keep out everday criminal cases from the Chamber. There is a danger that individual criminal cases could become part of our daily deliberations, which many hon. Members would regard as retrogade and unnecessary.
The most important aspect of the sentencing provisions — this must not be forgotten when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) talks about a crisis—is that the crisis was brought about by the Labour Government's lack of long-term planning between 1974 and 1979. The reason is simple. When the present Lord Carlisle was the Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office in 1972, he produced a report, which was accepted by the Government, proposing a long-term prison building programme. In 1975, the Labour Government shelved that programme when they were going cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund because of their economic policies. As a consequence, in 1979 the incoming Conservative Government inherited the problem of no long-term prison building programme and that has created the present crisis.
The drive to build new prisons, which my hon. Friends have set in train, will eventually begin to solve the problem. Meanwhile, there is a shortage of prison places, so we must look for alternative ways of dealing with the problem. That is why I say that there must be a new sentencing manifesto. Although it will not be included in the Bill, I hope that consideration will be given to that matter.
The second problem — stemming from a lack of prison places—that has led to the crisis is the fact that, because of the shortage, magistrates and judges have been pressured into having a ladder-type sentencing policy. That involves avoiding sending a convicted person to prison, a detention centre or youth custody at all costs. What happens is that these people make four or five appearances in court before they receive any form of custodial sentencing. That increases pressure on the prison system because the sentences imposed are inevitably longer, particularly for youths, than they would otherwise be.
Young people come before the courts and have an absolute discharge, then a conditional discharge, then a supervisional one and then a care order—that is four

appearances — before they are sentenced to youth custody. The same happens to adults. First they are fined, then they receive a conditional discharge, then probation orders, then community service orders, then suspended sentences and eventually they are sent to prison.
Prisons have two functions: first, punishment and, secondly, rehabilitation.

Mr. Keith Vaz: They have failed.

Mr. Hind: Prisons have failed for many of the reasons that I have given. By the time many offenders are given custodial sentences, they believe that they can get away with crime. They have got away with it so often because of the pressures created by the Labour Government with their short-sighted policy on prison building.
Perhaps we should consider sending people to prison sooner for shorter periods. Many prison governors would agree with me that in old-fashioned prisons where there are three men to a cell, slopping in and out, somebody who is locked up for a fortnight will remember it. If prisoners are released after a short sentence, they will not have become used to the system, and the deterrent effect of the unpleasantness of the prison will still burn in their mind. Then comes the next stage of rehabilitation.
Perhaps my hon. Friends will consider combining short prison sentences with supervisional community service, particularly for those who are offending for the first or second time. The sentences can be so short that offenders can use their holiday entitlement to serve their sentence, as a consequence of which they will not lose their job. We must consider flexibility in sentencing and ensure that the deterrent effect of serving a sentence is burning in offender's minds when they are released and that they are not used to the prison system as is the case with longer sentences. If we close the door behind offenders for a short time, we shall provide a real deterrent.
I urge my hon. Friends to consider Holland's weekend prison system. I know that it has flaws, but it is an alternative. People working during the week give up their time at weekends to serve their sentences. That is particularly appropriate for football hooligans and for violent offenders who get drunk in public houses and fight in the evenings. Such people can be adequately punished in that way. I urge those thoughts for the future, perhaps not for inclusion in the Bill but as the beginning of a way forward. The Conservative party has taken a radical step in the review of sentencing policy as a whole. Punishment is part of any custodial sentence, which should not be a pleasant experience. Rehabilitation is the other aspect, but punishment is quite important.
I hope that in Committee the Government will bring in an amendment abolishing the right to silence in a police station. For too long, that ancient prerogative has protected guilty men. It came into existence at a time when defendants could not give evidence at their own trial. It was unfair that they should have to give an explanation without warning which they could not subsequently deny when the matter came to trial. That situation, however, has long since ceased to exist. Following the Criminal Evidence Act 1892, defendants have been able to give evidence. Some say that that is the best thing that ever happened for the prosecution, but that is another matter. Many further safeguards have since been built into the law. The defendant can have his solicitor present. His statements can be tape-recorded. If no tape recorder is


available, contemporaneous notes are made of every question and answer and every page is signed. There can be no greater safeguards, so do we need the right to silence?
I commend my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's remarks about taking one step forward. I hope that he will include such a step in the Bill. The public cannot understand why a person charged with rape can refuse to make any comment to police officers investigating the case and later, through his counsel, suggest for the first time that the girl in the witness box consented to sexual intercourse with him. That cannot be allowed to continue. The Bill is an opportunity to end that situation.
The simple solution is to tell the defendant that if he refuses to answer the legitimate questions of the police it will count against him in his trial and when in the witness box he may be asked for an explanation. The right to silence is a fossil and it is time that it was ended. The Bill provides an opportunity to deal with the problem.
I am not alone in pressing that course. A recommendation was made 15 years ago by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, of which Lord Justice Lawton was chairman, but we are still saddled with the problem. As a result, the number of cases cleared up in the past few years, especially since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, has declined. If there were an obligation for the defendant to say something, I believe that the clear-up rate and the number of convictions would increase, because the defendant could not hide behind a mechanism which operates against the interests of the state, the victim and everyone else concerned in the case.
Finally, the Bill includes much-needed advances in relation to victims. I have already referred to children. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will have new powers to sort out that long-standing problem. As a statutory body, its position will be much clearer. The Government have encouraged victim support associations, of which I am proud to be a president, and have pursued area watch schemes and many other new ideas in crime prevention. The Bill takes many of those Conservative ideas a further step forward. It is a major piece of legislation which will improve the detection of crime and safeguard its victims. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Keith Vaz: As others have pointed out, we are debating these measures at a time when crime in this country has reached record levels. The reason for those record levels is directly related to the Government's policies. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) seek to blame the Labour Government for most of the crimes committed under the Conservatives. The facts speak differently.
In the city of Leicester and in the county of Leicestershire, in some areas crime has risen by 100 per cent. or sometimes even 200 per cent. Pleas by the chief constable, Michael Hirst, for more officers to patrol the outer estates and the inner-city areas have fallen on deaf ears. The Government seem to think that they can solve the problem of crime by building more prisons. In fact, what is needed is a commitment by the Government to build more homes, to provide a decent social services system, and to reform and revitalise the National Health Service.
Bearing in mind that offenders are likely to reoffend, building prisons will not solve the underlying problems. The Bill will not solve the underlying problems of crime and vandalism in the outer estates of Leicester such as Thurnby Lodge, Rowlatts Hill and Northfields. The demand there, like the plea of the chief constable, is for more resources and a better system of justice.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was right to talk of the crisis in our criminal justice system. In part, the crisis derives from the method of sentencing, the type of magistrates recruited to the bench and the log jam of cases yet to be heard. In many major cities, the Crown prosecution service is also in crisis. After almost a year, half the jobs for lawyers in the Leicestershire Crown prosecution service have still not been filled because lawyers are not confident to join a system which is in crisis. The Bill continues a long course of action which began in 1967 to restrict and remove the rights of defendants.
I wish briefly to refer to the clause dealing with the peremptory right of challenge and to trace the history of the way in which jurors' rights have been removed. We heard from the hon. Member for Lancashire, West that it was his fervent hope that the Government would abolish the right to silence. I am a solicitor and I practised in the North Leicester advice centre for more than a year and a half; and before that I practised in other law centres. I remember noting when I read my textbooks when I became a lawyer that our system of justice entrenches certain rights that are necessary to protect the defendant because we are supposed to have a fair system of justice in this country.
By removing the peremptory right of challenge, the Bill continues a path that was started in 1967 with the abolition of the unanimity verdict. That path was continued in 1977 with the removal of certain cases from juries. In 1978 the process of jury vetting began, and in 1984 the number of people disqualified from sitting on juries was doubled by the Juries (Disqualification) Act. The latest change proposed in the Bill will ensure that defendants will not be tried by their peers—people who are representative of the community. As we know, juries are not representative of the community. I believe that that will specifically affect black people and women and cases that may have racial connotations or cases involving rape for which there may be all-male or all-white juries.
Another clause in the Bill seeks to extend from eight to 28 days the period of remand in custody. We heard earlier that the prisons are overcrowded. Welford road prison in Leicester is the most overcrowded prison in the country. Despite that, and despite the fact that the Government are not prepared to provide additional resources for the governor of the prison on an emergency basis, I have received no representations from the prison governor or the prison officers to the effect that they would support any plan to extend the time allowed for a defendant on remand.
With its present eight-day limit, the remand hearing provides an opportunity for defendants to apply before the magistrates for a change in status and possibly a reapplication for bail. That allows solicitors an opportunity to meet the defendants at the courts, and that is slightly better than a solicitor meeting the defendant in prison. It gives the prisoner an opportunity to meet friends


and relatives, which may not have been possible in prison; and we must remember that that prisoner has not been convicted.
The cost arguments put forward by the Government are not sustainable. Even though there has been a large increase in costs to the legal aid system, I hazard a guess that it would be cheaper for a solicitor to see a client at the magistrates court where he or she might be able to see other clients than it would be for solicitor to a go to prison to see a remand prisoner.
Another clause concerns the proposal to allow the prosecution to appeal against excessively lenient sentences. I believe that that would give the prosecution an opportunity to try a defendant twice. Once a defendant has been through the distress of a trial, he would have to be brought before a higher court and receive a more severe sentence. That would give the press an opportunity to perform all kinds of activities to discredit or discuss cases that have already been before a lower court.
Lord Wigoder said on 14 July 1987:
that man will be set free, perhaps given a suspended sentence or fined heavily at, let us say, the Central Criminal Court. He will go back to his wife and children, back to his job, and will start to rebuild his life. Then, six months later or thereabouts, he will be called back to the Court of Appeal and told, 'We are very sorry. The trial judge made a mistake and you have got to go straight off to prison for 12 months.' That I described last time we debated this issue as being a piece of sheer cruelty, and I am sure that that is what it would be."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1987; Vol. 488, c. 941.]
It would be sheer cruelty for a person to be allowed to go through a trial and then, on the advice of the prosecution, for the Attorney-General to seek to take matters further.
Just to show that Oppostion Members are not killjoys and prepared to accept none of the Government's proposals, may I say that I am pleased by the advances that will be made in the Bill concerning video-linked evidence and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. It is high time that children were spared the distress of having to go through the court procedure. I would like to see video linking extended to all courts, including the juvenile court, where children are placed in difficulties during care proceedings if they have to give evidence against their parents.
I hope that the Minister will confirm in his reply that it is important that defendants are given the right to examine the video properly and question the evidence that it contains, including the right to question the technical nature of how any video evidence was taken. That important safeguard should be protected in the same way that in certain police stations in Leicester where tape recordings are made of defendants giving evidence the defendant can challenge that evidence and is assured of the important safeguards that are taken to protect what he says.
I welcome the Government's decision to place the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on a statutory basis and to allow an appeal on a point of law from a decision of the board. However, I should like legal aid to be available for applications to the board. The board should be given a statutory power to award costs. When the Legal Aid Bill reaches this House from the other place, I am sure that we will see the Government's real intentions with regard to legal aid. The Government aim to cut legal aid and, in their words, cut costs. That means that justice will have a price on its head. It is important that victims of crime should have legal aid to argue complex legal

arguments before the board.
It is important that the Minister, when he replies, should tell us how much money will be made available to publicise the schemes. I found at the law centre where I worked, and the local citizens advice bureau has informed me, that insufficient Government resources are available to publicise them. It is possible that people are unaware that they have such rights. In Leicester, we have a victim support scheme which provides such information. However, it is run on a shoestring and is not in receipt of any substantial payments from central or local government. If the Minister is prepared to put aside a great deal of money to publicise such schemes, the welcome changes proposed in the Bill will have been worth it.
The Bill could have changed many of the inadequacies and imperfections of our criminal justice system. Instead of doing that, it seeks to restrict the rights of individuals in an unconstructive way. I hope that in Committee suitable amendments will be incorporated to bring the delays in our courts system to a rapid conclusion.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The Bill provides a number of important messages. The first is that the Government and the Conservative party are not prepared to tolerate violent crime. For that reason, I welcome the provision that increases the maximum sentence for carrying firearms from 14 years to life imprisonment. In 1986, the last year for which figures are available, far too many robberies were committed with the use of firearms. The Bill provides the clear message that those who seek to use firearms to perpetrate offences risk substantial prison sentences.
Likewise, I welcome the fact that the law is to be tightened considerably in regard to those who go out armed with knives. There has been a distrubing growth in the use of knives in the perpetration of offences. Therefore it is to be welcomed that there are provisions for strengthening the law dealing with the sale and possession of offensive weapons, and that it will be an offence to have, in a public place, a blade or a sharply pointed instrument without good reason.
Secondly, the Government and the Conservative party are not prepared to tolerate child abuse. For far too long, child abuse has been a growing concern. It is right that steps should be taken to combat the evil of physical and sexual abuse of children. I welcome the fact that the Bill will enable child witnesses to give evidence by live video link when the offence is a sexual or violent assault.
For far too long child abuse has been a hidden crime, and the Bill is to be welcomed for giving greater protection to children. It will also ensure that the fact that there is no corroborative evidence is no longer a barrier to conviction in child abuse cases. That has often created a sense of great injustice, and on occasions has provided an artificial barrier to conviction. It is right that courts should be able to consider all factors when deciding what weight should be placed on a child's evidence. It cannot be right to have artificial barriers. Therefore, it is good news that the procedures will be improved whereby children can give evidence in court and that the sentences on those who indulge in physical or sexual assault on children are to be increased so that those who are guilty of sexual or sadistic child murders will serve at least 20 years in prison.
The maximum penalty for attempted rape is to be life imprisonment, and the maximum sentence for indecent assault on a girl is to be 10 years. The maximum penalty for cruelty to children is to be raised from two to 10 years. It is also right that the Government will introduce an amendment to make the possession of child pornography an offence. Every effort will be made to eliminate child abuse in Britain.
Thirdly, the Government and the Conservative party are determined that no one shall be enriched or shall benefit from their crime. To that extent it is welcome that there will be new powers for the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. There is a precedent in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 which enabled the courts to confiscate the assets of drug traffickers, but there are many other highly profitable crimes.
It is right that the courts should have powers to retain defendants' assets in advance of a trial and thereafter on conviction to ensure that in certain circumstances those assets and proceeds of crime are forfeited. Likewise, the message must go out that if anybody indulges in complex crime such as fraud, the Bill adds to the Criminal Justice Act 1987 so that the perpetrators can no longer rely on the hope that the complexity of their crime will help to assure their acquittal.
Part II strikes a fair balance between the community and the defendant in regard to changing the rules on the admissibility of business documents. The Government have occasionally been criticised for not doing enough to combat fraud in the City of London and elsewhere, but we have had an impressive array of legislative approaches to ensure that anyone who commits fraud does not benefit from it. We have the Companies Acts of 1980 and 1981, which, among other things, made insider dealing an offence, the Insolvency Act 1985, the Lloyd's Act 1982 and the establishment of the fraud investigation group in 1985.
Those actions, with the Criminal Justice Act 1987, have ensured that every effort will be made to combat the growing incidence of fraud. We must remember that the opportunities for fraud have increased with computers. We are determined that every effort should be made to combat fraud.
Another message which should go out is that the Government and the Conservative party will ensure that the machinery of justice is always appropriate to the needs of the community as times change. Times do change, as is seen with peremptory challenge. The circumstances of the last century which necessitated peremptory challenge no longer exist. The right of the prosecution to appeal to the Court of Appeal if it feels that a sentence is too lenient must be in everyone's interests.
Perhaps too often we have had trial by newpaper. The possibility of reviewing sentences, however, must be a benefit to the trial judge and enhance respect for the machinery of justice if there is considerable public criticism of a sentence.
Several messages will go out from this debate. We will not tolerate violent crime. We will not tolerate child abuse. We will not tolerate people being enriched by the proceeds of their crime. We will not tolerate the growth in the incidence of fraud and will do everything we can to combat it. Finally, we will always ensure that the machiney of justice is capable of meeting the needs of today and is relevant to today's needs.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) but with a little astonishment to his first remark. He did not make it clear who differed from him. He said that he would not tolerate violent crime and child abuse, but he did not tell us who does. His was typical of many Tory speeches, which try to hijack crime.

Mr. Baldry: Will the hon. Lady vote for or against the Bill?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not know how much of the debate the hon. Gentleman has listened to, but I do not think that that question is relevant to whether we share his self-righteous opposition to violent crime. I assure the hon. Gentleman that what he said was not party political. His saying that he does not tolerate violent crime or child abuse implies that others do, and that is offensive to the House and unhelpful to the debate.
The debate has been wide-ranging, which is not surprising, as the Bill is wide-ranging. I agree with many of those who have spoken and implied that a wide-ranging Bill is required to amend our criminal justice system. The problem is that this is not the Bill that we need. There can be no doubt that our system of criminal justice is crying out for reform, and our reasoned amendment—and the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—set out the reasons why that is so.
It should have been possible to conduct a debate on the reform of criminal justice with a common starting point, not least because some of the facts cannot be disputed. After all, the Conservative manifesto for the general election last year admitted that crime had been rising, and that the challenge from that should not be underrated, however much the party in government disclaimed responsibility for the rise in crime. Somehow it thought that crime rates had nothing to do with the Government of the day.
The Government have been in office for eight years, and their mark has been firmly left on our society. During that time, we have seen a vast increase in the level of crime in this country. Crime is up by more than 50 per cent. since 1979, and is rising at an alarming rate. That is especially true of the most serious types of crime—violent crime and crime in our cities. Yet, at the same time, the clear-up failure rate has also risen, from 58 per cent. to 68 per cent., which means that two thirds of all crimes are not solved. The level of reoffending now stands at more than 50 per cent. for adults, and at a staggering 80 per cent. for juveniles. The Government recognise and acknowledge the problem, although they try to distance themselves from it, and to absolve themselves of all responsibility for law and order.
If we know that crime rates are going up, that part of the reason for the high crime rate is the rate of recidivism and that crime is largely concentrated in deprived areas, it seems incredible that the Government are doing so little in the Bill to address the problems. Instead, they ignore some of the most fundamental problems that we face. They are introducing a collection of piecemeal, unrelated and often unco-ordinated measures, which, when looked at in detail, are seen to do far more harm than good. They remove essential civil liberties and, perhaps worst of all, ignore the possibility of using legislation of this kind for a complete and comprehensive review of criminal justice.
Let me begin however, on a positive note. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have welcomed some aspects of the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook pointed out earlier, several parts will have our support in Committee, although we shall want to examine the details and discuss whether the safeguards are adequate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) pointed out, the case for introducing video links for children to give evidence in court is undeniable. While there must be protection for the defendants, with proper cross-examination procedures, videos are a step forward, and one for which hon. Members such as my hon. Friend have worked for some time. I hope that we shall see the introduction of such links in the near future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook also made it clear that we shall support the Government's proposals on knives. On balance, we believe that the need to protect society against those who carry knives, and may he tempted to use them, outweighs the obvious danger to civil liberties and the potential for the reintroduction of the "sus" law.
My right hon. Friend outlined the conditions of our support. First, the proposal should not be a precedent for other changes involving the onus of proof; secondly, the power must be used sensibly if it is not to reopen old fears. We shall want to be constructive in Committee. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that there are other aspects involved in the selling of such weapons, and we shall want to examine that in more detail.
Another point of agreement is part of the Government's proposals on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. We agree that that should be put on a statutory footing, although we have reservations—to which I shall return in a moment—about some of the other changes.
There are points in the Bill which we openly acknowledge as necessary changes. The problem is that the points that we welcome are more than outweighed by the negative side of the Bill, not to mention the lost opportunities for real reform. At present, people who come into direct contact with the criminal justice system are all too often being denied their rights. All too often, victims of crime are forgotten and do not receive the support that they need. Suspects are not awarded adequate protection from injustice. Offenders are often inappropriately sent to prison and subject to degrading and overcrowded conditions where the chance of rehabilitation becomes zero.
Those who have to operate the system—the police, prison officers and probation officers — face problems and conditions that make their job increasingly difficult. The Government's new regime for prison officers, Fresh Start, has brought with it a number of serious difficulties in manning levels. This is not the time to discuss the problems in detail, but the difficulties facing the Government are, in part, the result of the significant inadequacy and the faults of our criminal justice system and of the Government's failure to act or to win the confidence of those who work in this area.
The sum total of all that is an increasing loss of confidence in the system on all sides. We should therefore be discussing proposals which would be likely to come to grips with the task and establish a system which is efficient,

effective and fair. Unfortunately, we are instead discussing a Bill which contains no coherence. The Bill is a lost opportunity. It is unlikely that we shall debate legislation of this kind again for many years.
In addition, the Bill is likely to make the situation worse in several respects. I am thinking particularly of the crisis of overcrowding in our prisons. When all those involved in the system are considering alternative ways of dealing with offenders, rather than sending them to prison, the Government propose measures which are likely to result in adding to the prison population, when our priority should be to reduce it. Those proposals include increasing the penalty for the illegal possession of firearms to life imprisonment. I assure Conservative Members that the Police Federation is concerned that, if the penalty for carrying firearms is the same as the penalty for using them, there is no deterrent to the criminal who is tempted to use a firearm in pursuit of crime, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton said.
Other measures which may increase the prison population include giving the prosecution the opportunity to challenge the so-called excessively lenient sentences, giving the courts the power to place juveniles in custody when they refuse to take part in a specified activity and increasing the length of time between bail hearings from eight days to 28 days, all of which will put even more pressure on our prisons.
I wish to consider the different groups involved in the working of our criminal justice system and how the Bill affects them. The rights of suspects will be greatly eroded by the Bill and that fact, which most threatens civil liberties, should be important to the House. We all wish to see the guilty convicted, but we also wish to ensure that all individuals are treated fairly under the law and that the chances of miscarriages of justice are minimal.
The removal of the prima facie rule in extradition will take away an important safeguard from the political refugee and will deny protection to the individual from being extradited on flimsy evidence. Removing the right to peremptory challenge could unfairly prejudice the defendant's situation where, for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood said, a black defendant is faced with an all-white jury, or where the prosecution exercises its right to stand by or, in some cases, vet the jury. It is not a question of a jury providing justice, but of confidence in our jury system.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton, with whom I am surprised to agree so much, described the Government's proposals as nonsense and as a confidence trick which would not lead to more convictions. He said that it hurt him to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, but I look forward to working with the hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee, three-line Whip or not, as he said—[Interruption.] We shall have to see what develops on some of the interesting points where there was agreement across the Benches.
The proposal to remove more cases from being tried by jury will serve only to add to the erosion of jury trial that has taken place over the past few years and will be important to certain people. We all know that the pressures on our courts are increasing because of the increasing levels of crime, and we know that the Government are anxious, as we all are, that congestion in Crown courts be tackled, but it is unfortunate that the


Government did not wait until they could judge the effects of their own measures introduced in 1986 to deal with that problem.
The defendant's rights will be further eroded by the provision to allow written documentary evidence to be admissible in court, even when the individual who made the statement or comment is not available for cross-examination. It is unacceptable that a judge will, for example, be able to declare admissible an individual's comment made at the scene of the crime and recorded by a police officer in his notebook even though the individual is not present in court.
When we examine the way in which offenders are treated by the Bill, we find little with which we can agree. We believe that if offenders are to be prevented from reoffending, we must deal with them both fairly and constructively. In that sense, the criminal justice system must serve them, too. By doing that effectively, it can help to prevent reoffending and further protect the community.
We cannot see the merit in giving the Attorney-General the power to send a case to the Court of Appeal, to consider a sentence that he believes to be unduly lenient. That would mean subjecting the offender to a form of double jeopardy and would give the prosecution two opportunities. Because the Attorney-General will make his decision largely on the basis of reports from the prosecution, that will inappropriately involve the prosecution in matters of sentencing. It will also involve the Attorney-General, a Minister of the Government, in the sentencing policy of the courts.
It was interesting to note that the new unholy alliance between the hon. and learned Member for Burton and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook operated in that matter as well, as both had what the hon. and learned Gentleman called enough political nous to realise what the Home Secretary did not — the pressure that the Attorney-General would be under from the tabloid press. We believe that the danger of political considerations being introduced or being thought to have been included in that process makes the proposal unacceptable and potentially unjust for the individual being sentenced.
The Government's proposals for offenders concentrate, however, on juveniles and on pursuing custody as the way of dealing with them. That is despite the fact that 76 per cent. of boys leaving detention centres after short sentences of four months or less are reconvicted within two years, while supervised activity projects are demonstrating that they have a much better success rate in turning young people away from crime, which is surely one of our main objectives.
While I am on the subject of young offenders, I must say that I find it incredible that the Government's proposal of a unified custodial sentence allows for sexual discrimination in the sentencing of boys and girls. Boys are to be detained from the age of 14, while for girls the age is 15. I hope that the Government will not persist in setting such an example of sex discrimination and that any change to correct that discrimination will not worsen the situation for girls by making the age limit 14 for all.
The Government have made much of their apparent concern for the victims of crime, yet, as is often the way with the Government, concern is not completely matched by action. It is true that at last the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is to be put on a statutory basis,

which is to be welcomed, but, having conceded the principle, the Government have moved on to a penny-pinching exercise for those who need help most, especially the poorer members of society. We should remember that those who live in deprived areas are most likely to fall victims to crime. Therefore, they are most likely to need the most help.
Yet under the Bill it is possible that people in that group might lose their supplementary benefit if the DHSS assumes that any compensation paid to them by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board includes an allowance for loss of benefit. The Government have found it possible to make two exceptions—compensation for rape and for funeral expenses. That is commendable, but why cannot the Government do that for victims of other violent crimes? Where is the logic in the Government's position?
Should a victim who is on supplementary benefit unfortunately suffer severe injuries as a result of a crime that is bad enough for him or her to qualify for a payment of more than £3,000, or if compensation payments take the victim's total income-generating capital above the limit, he or she will find that he or she is no longer entitled to supplementary benefit. Thus, the benefit of part of the compensation payment will be cancelled. The employed person who receives compensation will benefit fully from any payment. The Government are claiming to be a friend of the victim, as long as he or she is not poor, unemployed, elderly, disabled or living in a deprived area.
I should like clarification of clause 107, which provides the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board with the power to withhold and reduce compensation in certain circumstances. One of the criteria provided gives criminal convictions or unlawful conduct as a reason for implementing the clause and withholding compensation. I know that the matter has been discussed previously, but it still needs clarification.
What does the Bill mean by unlawful conduct if there is not a criminal conviction? Secondly, must the criminal conviction be in relation to the event for which the claim is being made, or could it be a completely unrelated conviction?
We accept that an individual should not be awarded compensation where he or she has perpetrated or assisted in executing the crime in which the injury occurred. However, it cannot be fair if the clause refers to any conviction whatsoever. The provisions for victims are still not adequate, and those for suspects and offenders are positively damaging.
Another major criticism of the Bill concerns what it does not contain—what it has failed to deal with—and many reforms are urgently needed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook outlined some of them—a new disciplinary system for prisons, which the Government promised in their White Paper, a statutory code of standards for penal establishments, the removal of Crown immunity from prisons, statutory guidelines for custody and a reduction in the length of some sentences.
We must make every effort to replace custody, in many cases, with more effective alternative ways which offer a better opportunity for rehabilitation, especially as, currently, four out of five prisoners have been convicted of non-violent offences. The Home Secretary said that severe sentences were appropriate for severe and violent crimes, but the majority of our prison population are in prison for crimes that fall outside those categories.
We should be seeking other forms of punishment and treatment, but in seeking alternative methods of treatment we should avoid turning to inappropriate and gimmicky measures such as electronic tagging, which is expensive and inefficient and is not the answer to overcrowded prisons.
Substantial measures are needed to improve the efficiency of our court system and reduce the unacceptable delays in cases coming to trial. One measure that could be effective is the 110-day rule that operates in Scotland. When pressed, the Home Secretary said that he would be making a statement soon. We would have had more confidence in the Home Secretary's conclusions had he volunteered that information rather than having it dragged out of him. We shall have to wait and see what develops on that proposal.
We are also badly in need of more effective procedures for bringing possible miscarriages of justice back before the courts. Recent cases have demonstrated that we do not have an adequate system for dealing with these matters and that a more effective procedure is required urgently if confidence in the system is to be maintained. The Home Secretary should not underestimate the importance of all sections of the population having confidence in our criminal justice system.
The Home Secretary said that these changes should be the last major changes in this area for many years. Unfortunately, the Bill is inadequate to meet its task and to warrant that description. The basic reason why the Government have their legislation wrong is that they are responding to individual problems as they arise. The Government have adopted a piecemeal approach to what should be a comprehensive and overall review of criminal justice. They have not, as they should have, gone back to first principles and examined the aims and the problems of our criminal justice system.
The Home Secretary should have outlined what we require from the system and then sought to introduce the necessary reforms. Some parts of the Bill might have formed part of that review while other parts of it definitely would not. The Home Secretary turned his back on that approach, and seems to he afraid to go back to first principles. We cannot help but wonder why. He must know what is required, but then he knew what was required last Friday when he feebly tried to defend the indefensible when opposing the Protection of Official Information Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).
Today, as on Friday, the powers that be in the Government, or perhaps the power — power seems to exist only in the singular—are not prepared to let the right hon. Gentleman do what he knows is required. Instead, we see the Government opting for simplistic answers to complex problems. Their attitude is simple and is as follows: the incidence of crime is increasing, so let us be tougher with criminals, and with suspects, too. That seems to be the sum total of their response. As a consequence, the Bill reduces the rights of accused and of suspects. It does nothing to help accused or the convicted. It does nothing either to increase their confidence in the system of justice.
Some Conservative Members would argue that that does not matter. They would not attach much importance to the rights of the suspected, the accused or even those convicted of crime. However, the rights of these people do matter, and for two principal reasons. First, despite the

events of last Friday, we live in a democracy, not a tin-pot dictatorship, and in a democracy each individual has rights. These are rights that we are charged with protecting.
The second reason is a practical one. The way in which we treat offenders matters because, unless we stop alienating offenders from the rest of society, we shall do little to reduce the rate of reoffending. The regularity with which those who come before the courts get caught in a vicious circle of crime is one of the major social problems in Britain. Recidivism is an enormous problem, yet the Government ignore it, despite their so-called concern about crime rates generally.
The Government's attitude to crime is simplistic. They think primarily about punishment and little about preventing those who have offended from doing so again. Preventive action would be real crime prevention; it would be meaningful and lasting. The absence of any attempt to deal with that in the Bill is an obvious major defect, arid is a result of the Home Secretary looking over his shoulder as a response to calls for more punishment. He is probably going against his own better instinct in opting for simplistic solutions.
The Opposition believe that new criminal justice measures should be based on the principle outlined in our amendment. There should be equal rights under the law and equal access to the process of justice. The Bill is not based on that principle. Instead, it consists of a series of simplistic solutions which ignore the major problem. That is why we tabled our amendment and why we shall vote for it.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): We are grateful to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for announcing the official Opposition's support for those bits of the Bill that she feels the Opposition can support.
The debate has been generally constructive, almost always interesting and sometimes positively thought-provoking. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) gave us something to think about. I do not know whether he regards this as a compliment but I shall read his speech tomorrow to glean some of the nuances of his suggestions about the need to keep long-term strategy in mind while legislation rolls on. One must always think about the next stages.
There were equally stimulating and thought-provoking speeches by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), whom we welcome to the Chamber. It must be a pleasant relief for him to be here away from the delightful muddle of alliance policy-making. —[Interruption.] I see the hon. and learned Gentleman is indicating assent, which I am sure will be recorded tomorrow in the Official Report. Welcome to the real world and thanks for the speech.
We are extremely grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury for the general Opposition support for the principles of what the Government wish to do on knives, although I understand that a number of hon. Members think that the measures could be improved. I especially welcome the strong support of my hon. Friends the Members for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). I know that my hon. and


learned Friend the Member for Burton would prefer greater stringency at the point of sale, but we feel that clause 130 can adequately deal with that. We can return to that point in Committee.
I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear any of the speech of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I know how worried he is about the carrying and use of knives in his constituency. I believe that he spoke of the "fashion" — a terrible word to use — of knife-carrying. He obviously wants that fashion to be turned into something very unfashionable. The hon. Gentleman welcomed the possession offence in clause 128, although he has some doubts about other aspects of what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I would wish to see in the clauses on knives.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Norwood and I shall find ourselves on the same Committee. I seem to have spent most of the past two or three years on Housing Bill Committees with the hon. Gentleman. I remember when we discussed the virtue of Donizetti's opera "Lucia di Lammermoor", which was highly irrelevant to that part of the private rented sector. We were reforming at the time and the hon. Gentleman produced a little-produced opera, also by Donizetti, known as "Amelia di Liverpool". We shall welcome more of that if the hon. Gentleman is on the Committee.
On lenient sentences, the hon. Member for Dewsbury made the extraordinary suggestion that it would be inappropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is in the Chamber, to scrutinise the convictions that might be referred to the Court of Appeal. She criticised the possibility of my right hon. and learned Friend acting in that way and regarded it as being overtly political. She thought that it would give the Executive too much control over the judiciary. She should tell that to Mr. Malcolm Dean, a journalist for The Guardian, who had the effrontery during the past two general elections to stand as a candidate for what was then known as the Social Democratic Party in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. C. Patten).
Mr. Dean was soundly beaten both times, but he is known as an accurate journalist. In ,The Guardian on 9 September 1983, he accurately recorded:
Mr. Roy Hattersley, Labour spokesman on home affairs, came out unequivocally yesterday for more controls over the judiciary … The key to shorter sentences would be more controls over the judiciary.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman still holds that view. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) and for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) that the strengthened provision to enable the Court of Appeal to increase an unduly lenient sentence, on reference to the Attorney-General, is a clear signal that justice must be done and be seen to be done.

Mr. Hayward: rose—

Mr. Patten: I think I can read the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood. If he will allow me to continue, he will be able to test whether I can in a moment. If I cannot, he can then intervene.
I have listened to the objections of Opposition Members, but they have put forward no alternative

proposal for dealing with over-lenient sentences. They are a problem, not because the courts are usually given to over-lenient sentences, but because an over-lenient sentence is a serious matter of grave public concern when it occurs.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Patten: I must first deal with my prediction about what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood might have asked if I had let him. As I said, an over-lenient sentence is a matter of great public concern. It is misleading to say, as did the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, that the defendant will be in double jeopardy. The person being prosecuted will receive only one sentence —the proper one—which will be handed down by the Court of Appeal. Without that, public confidence will continue to be undermined. On the point raised—

Mr. Hattersley: I wonder whether the Minister has read what the noble Lord Wigoder said in the House of Lords. He described a situation in which a sentenced man had completed his sentence and returned to his family, only to discover that an additional period would be added to the sentence. How does the Minister regard that as only one sentence and not a double jeopardy?

Mr. Patten: The eventual sentence will be the correct one for the crime. That is a matter of fact.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood wanted to know why and how cases could be referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. My right hon. and learned Friend might get to hear of a sentence that might justifiably be referred to the Court of Appeal under clause 34 in a variety of ways. Counsel at the trial might draw it to the attention of the Crown prosecution service, or the Attorney-General might be approached directly by a number of people, including hon. Members. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for St. Helen's, South (Mr. Bermingham).

Mr. Bermingham: Can the Minister reassure me and many other practising lawyers that he does not consider that the present sentencing guidelines of the Court of Appeal, and the activities of the Lord Chancellor's Department in respect of the appointment of deputy recorders and recorders, are wholly inadequate, and that they have not been doing their jobs for some years?

Mr. Patten: These important issues have nothing to do with the matter under discussion, which concerns the small number of lenient sentences that could occur, whatever guidelines are available to the High Court at any time.

Mr. Archer: rose—

Mr. Patten: On the issue of child victims, my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and for Stockton, South, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) have all given their support to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to do about child victims. I welcome the all-party consensus to move on this issue. I believe also that there is all-party consensus about the Bill's provision for the better treatment of victims. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Dr. Hampson) spoke about that issue.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury rather overlooked the very substantial extra resources that my right hon. Friend


the Secretary of State for the Home Department is committing to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Another £114 million over the next three years is not an inconsiderable sum to devote to putting right the problems faced by victims. The hon. Lady totally ignored the substantial sums that we are giving to victim support schemes, all of which have been initiated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister acknowledge that the reason for the need to increase expenditure in this sphere is the vast increase in crime under the Government? Will he comment on the discriminatory way in which people on supplementary benefit will be affected by his rules?

Mr. Patten: I have always agreed with those who say that crimes are committed by criminals. It is absurd for the hon. Lady to suggest that crime has risen under this Government. —[Interruption.] I shall explain to the chortling Opposition Front-Bench team on home affairs that, alas, crime has gone up for the last 30 years in good times and in bad, in times of feast and in times of famine. The Opposition cannot get away from that.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook criticised the proposal to abolish the right of peremptory challenge. I know that this issue is of interest to many hon. Members. As many hon. Members have said, in the past the justification for peremptory challenge was that it provided a safeguard for the defendant in circumstances quite different from those that apply today. Both the most recent reductions in the number of peremptory challenges, were made by Labour Governments in 1948 and in 1977 when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was on the then Labour Government Front Bench. The number now stands at three, but they are no longer needed because the defendant is adequately protected without them.
In modern circumstances it is positively objectionable that the defence should be able to influence the composition of a randomly selected jury even though it can show no good reason against the selection of a particular juror. The juror has come to court to do his or her duty. He or she — in this case "he", given the example that I shall use — does not wish to be challenged and finds himself unceremoniously bundled off the jury because he is wearing a tie and reading The Daily Telegraph. Nor does he wish to be bundled off the jury for not wearing a tie and wearing The Guardian. —[Interruption.] I should have said for reading The Guardian. In some circumstances some people do wear The Guardian and many people suggest that that is one of the best uses for that paper on a cold night.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery complained about the peremptory challenge, but his complaint was rather odd and eccentric. I think this was the only occasion on which I have seen him display that characteristic Liberal trait of eccentricity. He criticised our willingness, announced by my noble Friend the Earl of Caithness, to narrow the circumstances in which the Crown prosecution could use its right to stand by jurors. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that this would hamper the prosecution, and he gave what seemed to be a rather dubious example from his experience as a prosecutor. I shall say no more about that.
However, my noble Friend the Earl of Caithness, then Minister of State, Home Office, gave his undertaking in

response to pressure by the noble Lord Wigoder, whose experience in the criminal law is widely respected and who warmly received the undertaking. Perhaps it is too much to look to the alliance for unanimity, but that is a rather striking contradiction in alliance policy. On the merits of the issue, it seems that it is right to confine the right of the prosecution to stand by to the minimum consistent with justice, and that is what we have done.
On extradition, one thing that has been entirely forgotten during the debate is that different legal systems use different procedures to filter out cases which should not be brought to trial. This includes Scotland, where there are no committal proceedings similiar to those south of the border. So even within the kingdom we have different systems. That point might have been taken by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.
The reform of extradition law has been commented on by many hon. and right hon. Members and has been welcomed by many people. The prima facie requirement in extradition works against us, not for us. The reciprocity principle means that we must often establish a prima facie case in civil law jurisdictions which are unfamiliar with the concept. That could lead to us failing to extradite criminals, and that has been overlooked by those who have criticised the prima facie requirement, which is why we propose to disapply that requirement.
I cannot understand why the Labour Front Bench have changed their tune since the passage through Committee of the Criminal Justice Bill 1987, because during its passage the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), speaking with the full might and authority of someone on the Labour Front Bench, said that he was satisfied with the undertakings of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and withdrew the amendments, which were never returned to by the Labour Front Bench during Committee. It is extremely hard to understand why in 1987 the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury withdrew the amendments and there has now been a major change of tune.
The Bill must be seen in the context of the unrivalled commitment of the Government to strengthening criminal justice over the past eight years. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have outlined the ways in which the Criminal Justice Bill will further strengthen our nation's defences against crime. It will make important improvements to court procedures, it will toughen our response to international crime, it will increase the protection we give to children and it will improve the position of victims of crime, amongst the many other issues it deals with.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend pause to remind the House of the great pressure for the reforms in the Bill whereby the Court of Appeal can repair the damage done by eccentric judges of first instance?

Mr. Patten: I would not want to comment on any member of the judiciary, but I entirely agree that there has been considerable pressure from many people to consider the possibility of referring allegedly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal.
I have three things to say to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. First, he has not given us much original thinking about alternatives to custody. He has talked about the need to have fewer people in prison, but he has


not come forward with any positive ways of dealing with it—the sorts of ways that might be considered when we look at the long term, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West looked at. We could say that offenders do not have to go to prison, but can go to work and must pay a certain amount of their wages each week directly to the victim, or do not have to go to prison but at the weekend must do tough demanding work that is socially useful. Yes, offenders would not go to prison but, to use the Home Secretary's solicitous phrase, would be punished in the community by having to observe a curfew in their home each evening. All those elements begin to stack up to a positive alternative to custody for nonviolent criminals. Electronic tagging may have an important role in that.

Mr. Fraser: rose—

Mr. Patten: I hope that we shall have constructive debates in Committee. One of the chief contributions which the Labour party can make to law and order and the fight against crime is to use its influence with Labour-controlled local authorities to get them to work with, rather than to snipe at, the police. [Interruption.] Manchester and Ealing, where the Leader of the Opposition lives, are but two. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) is rather over-excitable this evening.
The role of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has been rather inglorious. What did he do when he was a member of the Labour Government? That is a long time ago — 10 or 11 years — but he was a member of a Government who nearly brought about a police strike in 1977, with officers leaving the police force in large numbers.
What does the right hon. Gentleman do now about those local authorities which do so much to undermine law and order? Does he invite them for a quiet chat over a bite to eat at the Gay Hussar and haul them over the coals later? Not at all. He wants to give greater power to people to determine the policies, priorities and methods of the police.
In a recent speech—I bet I am the only hon. Member who has read it—in Odsal in Bradford last September, of which I have, I believe the phrase is, for greater accuracy secured a copy, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I cannot see how a genuine partnership can exist without the election of a police authority responsible both for finance and the policy guidelines within which the police operate.
In other words, the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting the political control of the police. He goes on to reminisce about his time on a police authority 30 years previously and boasts:
we first suspended and then dismissed a Chief Constable". That is what he is really concerned with.

Mr. Hattersley: As the Minister has read the Odsal speech with such careful attention, I hope that he will point out to the House that the "we" to whom I referred was not the royal plural as used by the Prime Minister, but the chairman of the watch committee in Sheffield and the Conservative Home Secretary, Mr. Henry Brooke.

Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman was happy to be part of that decision-making process.
My last point—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have the last point.

Mr. Patten: My last point is just a word on the role of junior Ministers, about which the right hon. Gentleman had something to say earlier. We may be an underprivileged class — —[Interruption.] — but the right hon. Gentleman has a good record as a junior Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is one more minute, and I ask the House to listen in silence.

Mr. Patten: The best quotation from Barbara Castle's diaries is:
Roy Hattersley has been bluntly frank with me about his desire for promotion and also flattering.
By comparison, we are acting.
The Government have come a long way in strengthening the protection of law and order, and the Bill takes it a significant stage further.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 287.

Division No. 141]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Doran, Frank


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Douglas, Dick


Ashdown, Paddy
Dunnachie, James


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Eadie, Alexander


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Eastham, Ken


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Battle, John
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Beckett, Margaret
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Beith, A. J.
Fatchett, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fearn, Ronald


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fisher, Mark


Blair, Tony
Flannery, Martin


Blunkett, David
Flynn, Paul


Boyes, Roland
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fraser, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Galbraith, Samuel


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Galloway, George


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Buckley, George
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clay, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cohen, Harry
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hinchliffe, David


Corbett, Robin
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Holland, Stuart


Cousins, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Cox, Tom
Hood, James


Crowther, Stan
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, Bob
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cummings, J.
Howells, Geraint


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoyle, Doug


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Darling, Alastair
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)






Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Pike, Peter


Illsley, Eric
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, John


Janner, Greville
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


John, Brynmor
Quin, Ms Joyce


Johnston, Sir Russell
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Reid, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kirkwood, Archy
Robertson, George


Lambie, David
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lamond, James
Rogers, Allan


Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, Jeff


Leighton, Ron
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Litherland, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Livsey, Richard
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Short, Clare


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Tom
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Snape, Peter


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Steinberg, Gerald


McTaggart, Bob
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Strang, Gavin


Madden, Max
Straw, Jack


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Martlew, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Vaz, Keith


Meacher, Michael
Wall, Pat


Meale, Alan
Wallace, James


Michael, Alun
Walley, Ms Joan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wareing, Robert N.


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wigley, Dafydd


Morgan. Rhodri
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Morley, Elliott
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mullin, Chris
Worthington, Anthony


O'Brien. William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Neill, Martin



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Frank Cook.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Bellingham, Henry


Aitken, .Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Benyon, W.


Allason, Rupert
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amess, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amos, Alan
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Arbuthnot, James
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Body, Sir Richard


Aspinwall, Jack
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkinson, David
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bottomley, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baldry, Tony
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Batiste, Spencer
Bowis, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes





Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hanley, Jeremy


Brazier, Julian
Hannam, John


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Harris, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayes, Jerry


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayward, Robert


Budgen, Nicholas
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burns, Simon
Heddle, John


Butcher, John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butler, Chris
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hill, James


Carrington, Matthew
Hind, Kenneth


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Sir Peter


Churchill, Mr
Howard, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irvine, Michael


Curry, David
Irving, Charles


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert


Day, Stephen
Janman, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Durant, Tony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knowles, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knox, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lang, Ian


Forman, Nigel
Latham, Michael


Forth, Eric
Lawrence, Ivan


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Franks, Cecil
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Freeman, Roger
Lilley, Peter


French, Douglas
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gale, Roger
Lord, Michael


Gardiner, George
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
McCrindle, Robert


Glyn, Dr Alan
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Goodhart, Sir Philip
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maclean, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gow, Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Madel, David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Maples, John


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mates, Michael


Grist, Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Ground, Patrick
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mellor, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Hal






Mills, Iain
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Summerson, Hugo


Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mudd, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Neale, Gerrard
Thurnham, Peter


Needham, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trippier, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Irvine
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Renton, Tim
Ward, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Warren, Kenneth


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Watts, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wells, Bowen


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wheeler, John


Ryder, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Scott, Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Sims, Roger
Woodcock, Mike


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanbrook, Ivor



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Noes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown and


Stevens, Lewis
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading): The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 225.

Division No. 142]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aitken, Jonathan
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Alexander, Richard
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Allason, Rupert
Body, Sir Richard


Amess, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bottomley, Peter


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkins, Robert
Bowis, John


Atkinson, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baldry, Tony
Brazier, Julian


Batiste, Spencer
Bright, Graham


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Bellingham, Henry
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Benyon, W.
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick





Buck, Sir Antony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Heddle, John


Burns, Simon
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butcher, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butler, Chris
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butterfill, John
Hill, James


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hind, Kenneth


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cash, William
Holt, Richard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cope, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Irvine, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irving, Charles


Curry, David
Jack, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jackson, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Janman, Timothy


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Tony
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knox, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lang, Ian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Latham, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Forth, Eric
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Franks, Cecil
Lilley, Peter


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


French, Douglas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fry, Peter
Lord, Michael


Gale, Roger
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gardiner, George
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McCrindle, Robert


Gill, Christopher
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maclean, David


Goodlad, Alastair
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gow, Ian
Madel, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Malins, Humfrey


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maples, John


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gregory, Conal
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Mellor, David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Miller, Hal


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miscampbell, Norman


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)


Hawkins, Christopher
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moss, Malcolm


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.






Mudd, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Paice, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Patnick, Irvine
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tredinnick, David


Rathbone, Tim
Trippier, David


Renton, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rhodes James, Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walden, George


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ryder, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Ward, John


Scott, Nicholas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wheeler, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilshire, David


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Steen, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis
Woodcock, Mike


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Summerson, Hugo
Mr. David Lightbown and


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clay, Bob


Allen, Graham
Clelland, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cohen, Harry


Ashdown, Paddy
Coleman, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cox, Tom


Beckett, Margaret
Crowther, Stan


Beith, A. J.
Cryer, Bob


Bell, Stuart
Cummings, J.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Alastair


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blair, Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Blunkett, David
Dixon, Don


Boyes, Roland
Dobson, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Doran, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dunnachie, James


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Eadie, Alexander


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Eastham, Ken


Buchan, Norman
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Buckley, George
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Caborn, Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Callaghan, Jim
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fearn, Ronald


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Canavan, Dennis
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fisher, Mark


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Flannery, Martin





Flynn, Paul
Michael, Alun


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foster, Derek
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foulkes, George
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fraser, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Galbraith, Samuel
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Galloway, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morley, Elliott


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mullin, Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, William


Gordon, Ms Mildred
O'Neill, Martin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pendry, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Pike, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Prescott, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Quin, Ms Joyce


Heffer, Eric S.
Randall, Stuart


Hinchliffe, David
Redmond, Martin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Holland, Stuart
Reid, John


Home Robertson, John
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hood, James
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Robertson, George


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Howells, Geraint
Rogers, Allan


Hoyle, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Illsley, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Ingram, Adam
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Janner, Greville
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


John, Brynmor
Short, Clare


Johnston, Sir Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Snape, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Lamond, James
Steinberg, Gerald


Leadbitter, Ted
Stott, Roger


Leighton, Ron
Strang, Gavin


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Straw, Jack


Lewis, Terry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Litherland, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Livingstone, Ken
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Livsey, Richard
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Turner, Dennis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Vaz, Keith


Loyden, Eddie
Wall, Pat


McAllion, John
Wallace, James


McAvoy, Tom
Walley, Ms Joan


McCartney, Ian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Macdonald, Calum
Wareing, Robert N.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McKelvey, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McLeish, Henry
Wigley, Dafydd


McNamara, Kevin
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


McTaggart, Bob
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McWilliam, John
Wilson, Brian


Madden, Max
Winnick, David


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Worthington, Anthony


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Martin, Michael (Springburn)



Martlew, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Maxton, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Meacher, Michael
Mr. Frank Cook.


Meale, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—Resolved.

That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from Criminal Justice Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

(a) of any expenses incurred under that Act by a Minister of the Crown; and
(b) of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act; and

(2) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums falling to be paid into the Consolidated Fund under section 61 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Local Government (Scotland)

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 3) Order 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to debate at the same time the second motion on the Order Paper:
That the Revaluation Rate Rebates (Scotland) Order 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.

Mr. Lang: The main purpose of the rate support grant order is to fix the amount of rate support grants for Scottish local authorities in 1988–89, and to prescribe the allocation of the needs element to individual authorities. The order also makes adjustments, in the normal way, to rate support grants for earlier years to take account of more up-to-date information on matters such as interest rates, rateable values and provisional outturns of expenditure.
The Revaluation Rate Rebates (Scotland) Order 1987 continues revaluation rate rebates to give a fourth and final year of relief to those most affected by the 1985 revaluation.
At this time last year my predecessor was welcoming the fact that in the financial year then ending Scottish local authorities had, for the first time, planned for a lower volume of expenditure than they had incurred in 1979. It was a welcome sign of realism and the Government responded with a rate support grant settlement for the present year based on local authorities' own budgets for 1986–87, uprated for inflation, and with rate support grant sufficient to maintain the previous grant percentage. I think it is fair to say that the House generally, on that occasion, regarded the settlement as reasonable. Unfortunately, the Government's reasonableness found no ready response from local authorities that budgeted to overspend in 1987–88 by no less than £122 million—among the worst budgeted overspends that we have ever experienced. The result was large rate rises, heavy grant penalties and selective action to reduce the rates of two authorities, following approval of the House given last July.
This is not the occasion to go over that ground again, but it has posed an obvious dilemma for the Government in deciding what to do for 1988–89. The crude, if obvious, conclusion is that local authorities respond better to force majeure than to reasonableness. We have, however, decided—1988–89 being in Scotland the last year before the introduction of the community charge and correspondingly revised grant arrangements—that we shall try a further year of reasonableness, and the rate support grant settlement for 1988–89 that my right hon. and learned Friend announced to the House on 23 July last year is once again based on local authorities' actual budgets for 1987–88, with additional provision of 4 per cent. for inflation, an allowance for pay increases for teachers and other categories, and a further £12 million related to the costs of introduction of the community charge.
Aggregate Exchequer grant has been set so as once again to maintain the grant percentage. As hon. Members

will be aware, decisions on those matters arc taken only following exhaustive consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and I think that it is Fair to record that the general terms of this settlement met almost entirely COSLA's wishes. There was a difference of view about the appropriate allowance for inflation, but the total level of provision was very close to the level that COSLA itself was seeking. I make that point now because I want to return to it in what I shall say later about local authority budgeting for 1988–89.
The order's main provisions, as I have said, concern 1988–89. Aggregate Exchequer grant has been set at £2,370·53 million. That differs slightly from the figure of £2,372 million announced by my right hon. and learned Friend on 23 July. The change arises, first, from a reduction of £3·5 million as a result of our decision to transfer some provision for urban programme spending from current to capital, to achieve a better balance on that programme, and, secondly, by the addition of £1·03 million in respect of the transfer of responsibility to local authorities for children committed to residential care by the courts. That transfer of responsibility, and the amount of provision, have been agreed with COSLA. Overall, those figures represent an increase of £178 million or 8 per cent. over the equivalent figure of aggregate Exchequer grant for 1987–88.
On grant distribution, our proposals follow the usual) detailed consultation with COSLA, and indeed implement in very large measure what COSLA itself wanted. Overall, it was concerned that for this last year of the present grant arrangements, the main consideration should be stability in grant entitlements. The Government agree with that.
We estimate that £332·6 million of aggregate Exchequer grant will be paid as grants for specific services, leaving £2,037·93 million for payment as rate support grants. We propose to maintain the domestic rate relief at 7p. That is expected to cost £91·9 million in domestic element of rate support grant. Resources element compensates authorities with low rating resources. The ratio of resources element to needs element has, for the past two years, been 1:8, and we propose to maintain that ratio for 1988–89. That calls for a resources element of £215·8 million.
The remainder of the grant forms the needs element. An innovation this year is that, as a first call on the needs element, a sum has been earmarked to finance rating relief to sports clubs. That follows my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment during our consideration of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act to remove any disincentives for local authorities to give rating relief to sports clubs. The order provides that, on the basis of estimates received from authorities, £3·2 million will be available for that purpose in 1988–89. That is, incidentally, four times the amount of relief being given to sports clubs in the present financial year and will, I hope, be regarded as a welcome follow-up to the commitment that my right hon. and learned Friend gave.

Mr. John Maxton: Will the Minister explain whether that is new money over and above what would have been allocated to local authorities anyway, or is it coming out of the general needs budgets that local authorities would have had anyway, so that they could spend the money on something else?

Mr. Lang: It is a transfer of the arrangements. Instead of being taken out of the resources element, which would


not have applied evenly throughout all local authorities, the provision is being earmarked out of the needs element before the needs element is attributed. It will come out of the £178 million increase in needs element. Whether the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) chooses to call it new or old money, it was not there in the past. It has met its purpose, because it will give four times as much relief as is being given to sports clubs in the present year, and I hope that it will be regarded as a successful solution to this problem.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: This subject has been raised before in relation to the Linlithgow cricket ground. How will the allocations be made between various sports and who will make them? It is not a hostile question; I am asking only for clarification.

Mr. Lang: It is not for me to allocate it between different sports, if that is the hon. Gentleman's point. If he refers to the report on the rate support grant order, he will find a table in one of the annexes that gives the allocations to all local authorities. The allocation is based on local authorities' estimates of what they need to resolve this problem.

Mr. Harry Ewing: If local authorities decide to give rate relief to sports clubs, who will make up the shortfall—the Government or the ratepayer?

Mr. Lang: The shortfall — if that is the correct expression—comes out of the increase of £178 million, which is 8 per cent. extra over the equivalent figure of aggregate Exchequer grant for last year. That is a figure of more than twice the rate of inflation, and it allows for a substantial freedom of manoeuvre within that overall figure.
The rest of the needs element has been distributed using the client group method of needs assessment. However, implementing the client group method in full would have led to grant losses, or very small grant increases for some authorities and very large gains for others. In line with the generally expressed desire for stability in grant distribution, and in response to a specific suggestion from COSLA, we have therefore decided that every authority should receive an increase in needs element of at least 4 per cent. This gives rise for a need to limit gains, and at the top end it would be 10 per cent. Details of the calculation for individual authorities are given in annex E to the report on page 19.
The order also contains adjustments to grant for back years to take account of the latest information on interest rates, rating resources and outturn expenditure. Many of these figures stand to be varied further when final audited returns are received from the local authorities. All of these adjustments are on a basis that is well understood by authorities, and I do not want to detain the House with any more detailed comments on them.
The Revaluation Rate Rebates (Scotland) Order 1987 provides for rebates in 1988–89. Up to and including the current financial year, there have been three such orders. The first, for 1985–86, provided for rebate of all rates payable on rateable value in excess of three times the 1984–85 rateable value, subject to a maximum rebate of £10,000. The orders for 1986–87 and for the current year respectively provided for 75 per cent. and 50 per cent.

rebates and for maxima of £7,500 and £5,000. The Act and orders together have ensured that the 1985 revaluation has been gradually brought into effect for those ratepayers with the greatest valuation increases. The order marks the completion of these transitional arrangements, providing in 1988–89 for rebates of 25 per cent. of the rates payable on rateable values increased by more than three times in 1985, subject to a maximum rebate of £2,500.
I estimate that about 130,000 domestic and about 60,000 non-domestic ratepayers have received rebates, and that the total rates rebated over the four years of the scheme will amount to about £57 million. About £51 million of this relief will have been given up to and including the current financial year, and I expect that, under the order, about £6 million will be rebated in 1988–89.
I should like to address one or two general points. The first is why we should experience such persistent overspending by local authorities. Labour Members will have their usual pat answers, but it is a point that deserves serious consideration. It cannot be simply that the Government make inadequate provision in their public expenditure plans, or at least that cannot explain the high budgeted overspend this year when provision was based on local authorities' own plans for the previous year plus an inflation allowance. Nor does it appear to be inadequate grant distribution arrangements. COSLA is fully consulted about these arrangements and, while they can admittedly be rough and ready at the margins, I know of no serious suggestion that they are fundamentally flawed.
The answer must be that there is an endemic capacity in local government to increase its expenditure constantly, regardless of the consequences for its ratepayers. In some cases that is a result of simple ideology, and I do not suppose I can offer any rational argument that will make any difference to that. But I have also become conscious, since I took on this responsibility in June 1987, that there are many authorities which consider themselves prudent and moderate and which still overspend substantially on guidelines despite what they regard as their best efforts at economy.
1 invite these authorities to look again carefully at their budgeting process, and particularly at the extent to which existing expenditure simply becomes uncritically the baseline for the next planning exercise, without any serious review of whether all existing spending needs to continue, or of whether policy objectives are being met in the most efficient and cost-effective way. Proposals are now being considered in another place to give the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland a formal statutory duty to undertake value-for-money studies in local government. The first of such studies, undertaken without the benefit of the statutory duty, has now been published and points to possible economies among Scottish local authorities of up to £10 million a year through more effective energy management. Such studies will help cost-conscious local authorities in future.
There is one other aspect to this. It is frequently pointed out that the actual level of inflation experienced by local authorities can be higher than that experienced in the economy as a whole, and I recognise that there may be something in this. But it is too ready an excuse, as for many of their purchases local authorities are in a buyers' market. They can, if they have the will, influence the level of inflation in their own costs. They have direct control,


for example, over their own wage negotiations. Having heard last July that the inflation assumption in the settlement for 1988–89 was 4 per cent., they have no one to blame but themselves if in September they conclude an agreement to increase their manual workers' pay by over 10 per cent. Every other employer in the country, including in other parts of the public sector, has to conduct pay negotiations against a predetermined background of what resources are available. There is no reason why local authorities should behave differently.
It is suggested — it is a point of view that I have heard several times in recent months—that, in line with our new national economic success, the restraints should be taken off public expenditure. But that is part of the kind of thinking that got the economy into trouble in the first place. The public sector, and public sector trade unions, have no natural right to a prescribed share of the national wealth. As a Government, we are committed to containing public expenditure, but we are committed also to ensuring that the resources are available to maintain adequate standards of public services. I believe that our record on local authority expenditure provision is a good one. But we have also to ensure that the circumstances are created and maintained in which business and commerce can operate profitably and create and maintain jobs. It is the private sector that generates the resources from which the public sector is funded. We must ensure that local government does not take a disproportionate share of public expenditure at the expense of other public services. In effect, this is what has happened in Scotland for 1988–89. I hope that it will not have to happen again.
Finally, I want to say something about reports that are now beginning to appear of local authorities' budget plans for 1988–89. Disappointingly, but no doubt unsurprisingly, we hear stories yet again of substantial expected overspends by some of the larger authorities. I would only say that there is no excuse or justification for this and that authorities which seek to justify their overspending next year by reference to their low guideline increases delude themselves and mislead the public, who will recognise that these low guideline increases arise only for authorities whose spending is historically already very high, and well in excess of their assessed needs. I warn these authorities tonight that my right hon. and learned Friend will be prepared to impose severe grant penalties again next year in response to high budgeted overspending, and will once again consider the use of his power to secure rate reductions where planned expenditure is in his view "excessive and unreasonable". But there is still time for authorities to consider their budget plans carefully, and I hope that as many as possible of them will do so and budget within guidelines, in the national interest and in the interests of their own ratepayers.

Mr. John Maxton: The Minister's speech livened up a little towards the end, even though it was incredibly funny to hear his analysis of Scotland's economy and local government expenditure and his normal tirade against overspending local authorities. This time last year we were listening to Michael Ancram make such speeches, supported by nine other Conservative Members who are no longer in the House. It is not local authorities that have learnt nothing from last June's general election. It is the Minister who appears to have learnt nothing.
The people of Scotland elect the local authorities in Scotland to take decisions on expenditure and services. The only people who elected the Minister are the electors in his constituency — [Interruption.] Yes, just. The people of Scotland rejected the Conservative party and the Government and wanted nothing to do with them. It is time that the Government stopped coming to the House with the arrogant prating that we heard from the Minister.
The Minister said several times that this was the last time that we would debate rate support grant orders. I suppose that most of us would breathe a great sigh of relief if that were true, but I make a guess — perhaps a reasoned guess—that this time next year we will be back debating a similar order. An administrative nightmare has been created in Scotland by the poll tax legislation. The Government are delaying the orders which are needed to implement the poll tax if the local authorities are to have it in place by 1 April 1989. The Secretary of State for Scotland will be forced to use English legislation. The fact that the rebate scheme is to be a United Kingdom scheme is an excuse to delay implementation until 1 April 1990 at the earliest. Therefore, we will need a rate support grant order next year.
I expect that there will also be orders on penalties and variation orders. I look forward to hearing the Minister yet again putting forward a rate support grant order. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I look forward to it because at least it will mean that the poll tax will be one year further away. I should be grateful if the allocation of local government finance were handed over from this House to a democratically elected Scottish assembly in Edinburgh, but if our having to debate one more rate support grant order means one more year without the poll tax, I am prepared to put up with it. If we ever have the poll tax, the Minister will still be complaining, weeping crocodile tears about the poor taxpayers in Scotland and bringing orders to reduce the level of poll tax in what he claims are high-spending local authorities.
The Minister has tried to pretend that this settlement is generous. I confess that it is. There has at least been a standstill compared with previous settlements. It would be perverse not to admit that. But it is another of the Government's con tricks to pretend that they are generous and that the local authorities and the people of Scotland should go down on their knees and thank the Government. The idea that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities agreed to this sort of settlement beggars belief. Of course, there is consultation. Of course, COSLA says, "If you can do nothing more, at least keep us at the same point we were at last year." But that is not what the local authorities or COSLA want. They want a much more generous settlement.
Let us look at what has happened since 1979.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): Labour has lost three elections.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman from an English constituency says that the Government won three elections. They have lost three elections in succession in Scotland and every local government election in Scotland since 1979. They are now hanging on by no more than their fingernails to what little support they have. The Government have Englishmen sitting in the Whips' positions—the hon. Members for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—


because they cannot find a Scottish Whip from among their remnant of 10 hon. Members representing Scottish seats. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is the only Scottish Member on the Government Benches who has been neither a Minister nor a Whip. I know that he takes great pleasure in that.
In 1979, the level of rate support grant was 68·5 per cent. This year, even at a standstill, it will be 55·4 per cent. of expenditure. That does not take account of any clawbacks that may reduce it to an even lower figure. If the Government, with the generosity that they claim for themselves, were giving Scotland a 68·5 per cent. rate support grant this year, local authorities would receive another £557 million. What could local authorities provide in services for the unemployed, the single parents, the old and the children in our schools if they had that money to spend?
It is not good enough for Ministers to say that this is a generous settlement. Even in the Government's own terms, it is not as generous as the Minister would have us believe. He has claimed that the relevant current expenditure is an increase of 8·6 per cent. on the provision for this year, which is true. But it is only 4 per cent. above the level of current local authority budgets, plus the cost that he has identified to take into account the implementation of the poll tax and the new rebate scheme for housing benefit that is coming into force in April this year. Merely to stand still and maintain services as they now are, therefore, local authorities—

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Maxton: I shall finish the point. Local authorities will have to keep current levels of expenditure on services within that 4 per cent. increase. So if the RPI increases by more than 4 per cent., authorities will find that they have to cut back on services, or increase their rates. If, as is even more likely, local government services' costs rise by more than 4 per cent.—that has been normal in the past few years—local authorities will have to cut back on what they are doing.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that an allowance had been made for the administration of changes in housing benefit. Nothing in what he has said thus far—or, indeed, ever before—draws attention to the fact that, with the increased rents of the past few years, the huge increase in housing benefit has all gone directly into the housing coffers, which is really public money going into local government. So how have there been cuts?

Mr. Maxton: The reason why a massive increase in housing benefit has gone to local authorities is that more people are in need — more unemployed and elderly people need the help that the state should provide. On 1 April this year, thousands of people in Scotland will lose the housing benefit of which the hon. Member for Tayside, North is so proud.
Included in the 4 per cent. increase is £12 million which is allocated to implement the poll tax. No one in Scottish local authorities believes that that money will be adequate; much more will be required. Strathclyde alone is talking about having to take on 700 extra people just to draw up the register and collect the money. So the £12 million will be wholly inadequate. Because the Government will do

nothing about that, services for Scottish people will have to be cut, or their rates increased, to pay for the imposition of a tax which the vast majority do not want and which they clearly rejected last year in June. So that this poll tax can be imposed on them, the people of Scotland will have to have cuts in local authority services. That is an obscenity.
I find it interesting that the budgets that attracted the wrath of the Secretary of State in July and led to the withholding of £202 million of grant by the Treasury are now acceptable to the Government. If it is now seen by the Government that £202 million is the amount that local authorities ought to spend over and above what they spent last year, surely it would be logical in this year's budget to restore that £202 million to local authorities.
I do not intend to go much further along this line, but even under this settlement some local authorities will lose as a result of the rate support grant. Local authorities representing over half the people of Scotland will receive only a 3 per cent. increase in real terms in their budgets. That has to take account of inflation and pay increases and meet the last stage of the teachers' pay increase. Nobody in Scotland believes that local authorities can maintain their services without increasing their rates.
Conservative Members complain about local authorities increasing their rates. Those are the authorities that are faced with an increase of only 3 per cent. in grant. That means that they will have to increase their rates by more than the Minister wants simply to maintain services at their present level. Of course, if they increase rates, the Minister will claw back some of the money. Those authorities include Lothian, Strathclyde, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Cumnock and Doon Valley among others. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends who represent at least some of those authorities would wish to speak in the debate to give details of the effects on services.
I have already made the point about relief for sports clubs. It became quite clear to my hon. Friends that there is no new money for that. It is a con trick from beginning to end and we warned local authorities about that. There is no new money and local authorities will have to find from other proposed expenditure the money that will go to sports clubs.
I shall now deal with the second order. When the rate revaluation took place there was an outcry in Scotland about it, especially from the supporters of the hon. Member for Tayside, North. The then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), here at the whim of only 182 people in Ayr, boasted about how he was being enormously generous in giving rebates. He allocated £50 million in 1985–86. We accept that that was new money for people whose rate increase was more than threefold. The amount the following year was £37·5 million and this year it is £25 million. After doing my sums, I find that it will be £16·75 million next year.
The total to be spent is £57 million over four years out of a total budget of well over £100 million. That is the generosity of the Secretary of State. He was never as generous as he tried to make out. He should have worked out a more generous scheme so that more people who were hit got the money or he should have given to local authorities the extra money to spend as they wished.
The Government have been rejected by the people of Scotland time and again. In every election, both local and


national, since 1979 the Tory vote has gone down, the number of Tory Members of Parliament has gone down and the number of Tory councillors has gone down. Yet the Government continue arrogantly to claim that they have a right to say what is right for the people of Scotland.
The people of Scotland will have many more chances to reject the Government, and their next chance will be in May this year in the district council elections. All the evidence points to the fact that the Tory party will be kicked in the teeth yet again by the people of Scotland. Perhaps on that occasion, at long last, the Secretary of State and his "Hobson's Choice" Ministers will listen to the people of Scotland. Perhaps the Secretary of State will go to the Prime Minister and say, "I am a democrat; I believe in the will of the people of Scotland and I can no longer therefore govern Scotland and I urge you to establish a Scottish assembly that rules Scotland for the people of Scotland." That is what the Opposition want and that is what the people of Scotland want.

11 pm

Mr. Allan Stewart: The House has heard before most of the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and we shall no doubt hear it again and again, but it will be interesting to compare precisely what he said at the end of his speech with the apparant sudden U-turn by the Scottish Labour party in the Scottish Affairs Committee debate last Thursday. It sounded to me as if the Scottish Labour party still believes in the mandate argument, and that the hon. Member for Cathcart was rejecting the concept of a unitary Parliament.

Mr. Maxton: In return, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—or the ex-Minister—whether he believes that there ought to be a Scottish Office? While he believes that there should be separate legislation and separate administration for Scotland, he has no right to say that the Scottish people have no right to say what happens in such a Scottish Office.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is in the wrong party if he pursues that line of argument, and the sooner he joins the Scottish National party the better, because that is precisely the logic of his position. Whether the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and her colleagues would wish to accept a subscription from the hon. Member for Cathcart is another matter.
I welcome both orders, although I should like to speak solely about the rate support grant order because of limitation of time. My hon. Friend the Minister of State described the settlement as reasonable, and he was able to say that despite the valiant efforts of the hon. Member for Cathcart to find something to criticise. The settlement is fairly generous by any reasonable standards. There is an increase of provision of just under 9 per cent. which is paralleled by an increase in the aggregate Exchequer grant of 8 per cent.
Within the individual figures, my understanding is that there is a real increase in the guideline figures for every authority in Scotland and an increase of at least 3 per cent. in cash terms for all authorities' guidelines, compared with their 1987–88 budget. That settlement is very generous indeed.
I welcome what the Government are doing for sports clubs and the increase of 9 per cent. for education.

However, my right hon. and hon. Friends will have to keep a watchful eye on local government expenditure. The question that the House must always ask is whether all of this money will be spent wisely and sensibly. I do not think that the current behaviour of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is very encouraging in that regard. To take just one example, I believe that this week members of the Socialist COSLA are coming down in droves to roll into Westminster to a mass lobby at the ratepayers' expense.
There is some doubt, I understand, about the legality of their expenditure. It is not my purpose to pursue that issue tonight, but I put it to the House that expenditure of £40,000 or more of ratepayers' money on what is frankly a jolly is outrageous. Although it is a small sum in relation to the total of local authority expenditure, it is an unfortunate indication of COSLA's priorities.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Is the hon. Member speaking for himself or, as a former Minister, is he reflecting the weight of Conservative opinion in Scotland? Is it the intention of Scottish Conservative Members not to meet any of the COSLA delegation on Wednesday?

Mr. Stewart: I am speaking for myself, and I will answer that in two ways. First, the members of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have made it absolutely clear that they regard this as an outrageous waste of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money. They will be meeting in Edinburgh, but, as a ratepayer in Glasgow, I believe that this is a outrageous waste of ratepayers' money. It is certainly not my intention to meet the members of the convention. If they wish to come to the House to lobby Members of Parliament, they should bring a small and expert delegation, not everybody they can find in Scotland to come down at the ratepayers' expense.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will keep a watchful eye on local authority expenditure as a result of the settlement. This year there is concern that authorities may increase their rates more than is necessary in order to raise the base for non-domestic rates when the provisions of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act come into force.

Mr. John Home Robertson: They never will.

Mr. Stewart: They will, fear not. It is clear that there is the potential for local authorities to do that. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister may not be able to comment on that possibility tonight, but I hope that he will keep it under constant review.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I would like to make a brief contribution to the debate. [Interruption.] Some rather extravagant claims are being made about the length of the future of our great alliance in British politics. They are vastly exaggerated and unduly pessimistic; every new day brings a new dawn.
Dealing with the revaluation rebate order, I remember moving a ten-minute Bill on the need for some relief in rating revaluation in 1985 and being roundly abused by everybody because I was doing a fag-packet calculation, as is my wont, based on my constituency and I was rash enough to suggest that £15 million might make a big


difference if it were applied properly. I was ridiculed by Conservative Members who said that that amount of money could not be found from the Treasury. Then, before the Tory party conference in 1985, when the then Secretary of State for Scotland realised that he was on a loser, he came back with £50 million a year from the Treasury over four years. Even with my O-level arithmetic, I know that that comes to £200 million. This is the last of the four years, and we have managed to spend and allocate £57 million of that money.
I say to the Secretary of State that there is disappointment that the Government, having won the battle—I applauded the Secretary of State for having waged and won the battle for £50 million a year—did not apply that money over a wider range of subjects in order to give the relief that was then necessary and is still necessary. The Secretary of State has missed an opportunity. If he had been more generous, he would have been given credit for that.
Looking ahead, there is another revaluation waiting in the wings over five years. If we are not careful, the commercial subjects left in rating will be subject to all sorts of horrors and may well require that the precedent established in 1985, which I welcomed and continue to welcome, will have to be wheeled out again in 1990. I hope that the Secretary of State will be more generous then and learn some of the lessons which he should have learned over the four years of operation of this rebate relief scheme. He should have brought more commercial subjects into relief, and I hope that he will give that some thought between now and 1990.
I am not an expert on the rate support grant order, but I cannot understand what the Government complaint is. From the figures which the Library and COSLA have given me and the pattern of expenditure in volume terms over the past nine years, am I not right in thinking that there has been not a significant increase but a marginal one, if there has been an increase at all? If so, what is the point of rubbing the collective and individual noses of COSLA and individual authorities in this propaganda battle between central and local government in terms of the extravagant degrees of overspend and other emotive phrases such as those we have become accustomed to hearing? It does the whole political process no good when the breach in confidence and the breakdown in communications between central and local government comes to such a sorry pass.
My experience in this place is not great and I have no direct experience of local government, but it seems to me that over that period the Government have paid a high price, whatever success they may have had and however necessary the steps to constrain individual local authorities. I accept that the Government must do that, and certainly when we are the Government in the near future we shall have to face up to these problems responsibly. The Secretary of State must recognise that over the past nine years and against a background of no great increase in volume terms that I can identify, the price he has paid is generally too high. That is a political fact of life which over the past nine years we have experienced in Scotland.
It is a salutary fact that the grant percentage has been reduced from 68·5 per cent. in 1979 to 55·4 per cent. now, which is a difference of some £557 million. Therefore, if

there is an argument about where the rate increases have come from, it is impossible for the Government to say that they have not, at least in large part, been responsible for some of these rate increases.
The Minister said, and I should like to press him on this, that he thought that the incidence of retail price index increases as they affected local government was higher than the average RPI figures. Have the Government undertaken any detailed analysis of what that means? If it is true, and I believe that it is, more information should be provided so that we can make more objective decisions about what cost increases local authorities are facing, and they are facing increases.
There has been an element included in the needs element of the rate support grant to meet the teachers' pay award and to deal with the rebate legislation. I do not know whether they have been adequately covered and I suspect that they have not. However, I am absolutely certain, as one does not need to look far beyond that, that the House has been showering a plethora of other duties and obligations on local authorities in recent months and years, for example, data protection legislation, for which I am partially responsible with my private Member's Bill last year, and disabled persons legislation. There is a whole series of individual incremental increases which, taken together, produce real new burdens on local authorities.
I know something about social security because I spent many a long hour in the 1986 Social Security Bill Committee. The housing benefit regulations that the Secretary of State is introducing in April will cause tremendous difficulties and inexorably increase the costs of local authority administration. I cite the experience of 1983 with the administrative shift from DHSS to local authority payment of housing payment. That was regarded as a minor tidying-up operation which everyone supported, but it caused great difficulty. In my view, the extra demands on housing departments and the increased information and expertise required to administer the system efficiently have not been properly taken into account in the orders before us.
In all honesty, I also do not think that sensible provision has been made for the on-costs and additional expenditure required for implementation of the community charge. I do not believe that £12 million next year is enough. COSLA believes that the Government have underestimated the cost by about 50 per cent. If that proves to be true, will adjustments be made in the course of the financial year? I believe that there is a real danger that the Government are rushing this fence. It is a very complicated piece of legislation. Much work remains to be done and many regulations have not yet been put out for consultation. I fear that there will be a good deal of administrative chaos anyway, but my question today is simply this. If, as the Government monitor the situation, it becomes clear that the £12 million is a substantial underestimate, is there any machinery for taking account of that in the course of the year and, if so, will the Minister use it?
Considering the orders against the background of the financial situation of local government, I believe that the Government could have done better. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that the figures are a marginal improvement on what has gone before. My local authority in south-east Scotland has no great complaint other than those that I have mentioned in passing today. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government


have paid a very high price and I am pleased that these are to be the last orders. I hope that in the future the Government will organise the system better, although I suspect that that is a vain hope, and at least improve the relationship between central and local government when the community charge system is introduced.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am — [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted that I still have my fans on the Opposition Benches.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who spoke on behalf of the Liberals, must be one of the world's supreme optimists as his chances of ever occupying the Treasury Bench must be as slender as those of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I was surprised that he should make such comments today when the nice people of politics have been seen for what they are. Like the rest of us, they fall out and have disagreements. It must also have been discouraging for the hon. Gentleman to discover that his friends the Social Democrats have not even come along to hear what he has to say, although there were two Liberals here to support him.
The hon. Member for Cathcart made a fascinating comment towards the end of his speech. He will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but he seemed to be saying in effect that, so long as there is a Scottish Office and the votes of the Scottish people do not support the party in power in the unitary Parliament of the time, there is a requirement for a Scottish assembly. What does the hon. Member for Cathcart think would happen if a Labour Government came to power? Does he mean that there is no need for a Department of the Environment substantially for England and Wales?

Mr. Maxton: Substantially, not entirely.

Mr. Walker: I said "substantially". The hon. Gentleman is going down the road that I had hoped that he would follow.

Mr. George Foulkes: Order.

Mr. Walker: This relates to the rate support grant order. I did not raise the matter; it was raised by the hon. Member for Cathcart. This is a debate and I am trying to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Cathcart.
I trust that the hon. Member for Cathcart will realise that the Scottish Office looks after forestry, which covers substantial areas in England. If I looked at these matters in more detail, I could find other examples. As always, the hon. Member for Cathcart has not done his homework carefully or thoroughly enough.
I now want to consider the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister. I agree that we must achieve value for money when we consider what happens in local government. In the examinations into value for money, has any attempt been made to consider the method of organising and collecting the community charge? As I understand it, at least two computer firms are offering suitable packages to local government. Has any attempt been made to evaluate those packages? A British company, ICL, is offering a package that has been accepted by a number of Scottish local authorities. I also understand that Tayside region has opted for a package from National

Cash Register. Which of those packages provides the best value for money and has any attempt been made to study them? If so—

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Walker: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
If we are to have a cost-effective system of collection, the most cost-effective package should be implemented.

Mr. Maxton: Do the packages offered by the two companies include, as they obviously must if they are total packages for computerisation, any information on the rebate schemes and if so on what basis do they work? The Government have failed to offer us any rebate scheme.

Mr. Walker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is an expert at writing software for computer companies and he will know that if the software structure is organised correctly in the first place, the level of rebate can be easily fed in at a different level. I am not an expert in those matters, but I know a little about running computer systems. Department store groups led this country in the use of computer systems and stock control was the first thing to be computerised. If the hon. Member for Cathcart was suggesting that the packages on offer are in some way defective, I cannot reply to that. I do not know, as I have not tried to study them. I am asking the questions, not giving the answers. However, I would like to know whether they will be cost-effective.
I welcome the provisions covering the sports clubs. By any standards, anyone considering the orders tonight would agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that they are reasonable settlements in the circumstances, and, with my hon. Friend the Minister, I hope that this is the last time that we will ever debate such orders.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister's speech shows that the Government are turning their back on local services, cleaner streets, and better libraries. They are restricting improvements in leisure services and heralding more council cuts and soaring rates.
The Minister's comments mean that the new poll tax will be even higher than the figures already given by the Government. The settlement goes nowhere near meeting the recent pay increases of local government workers and the Government are thwarting all attempts to improve the cleaning services on our streets which involve staff and equipment.
We know that the money is available. The Government have just spent £130,000-plus. Was it on cleaning up the streets? No. It was spent on making litter for the streets. It was spent on a leaflet on the poll tax which contained so many mistakes that it should have been pulped. That money should have been spent on local government services rather than Conservative party propaganda.
The Government are also turning their backs on improvements in our library services. This settlement will not fund even current services. The Government have brought chaos to local government services. They have hit home owners with savage cuts in repairs grants. Last month, they cut Edinburgh's 90 per cent. grant budget from £26 million to £14·5 million. They cut Glasgow's from £32 million to under £15 million. The cut inflicted on home owners in Scotland in the grant queue was more


than £29 million, and it was made when local councillors wanted to help to reverse the disrepair experienced by private tenants.
The settlement continues the Government's attack on local government. In 1984, the Conservatives lost control of Edinburgh — and Edinburgh lost £5 million in rate support grant as part of the Government's retribution on the ratepayers and voters of the city for voting in a Labour administration after years of Tory complacency and neglect, which had reduced many of the services in the city to a shambles.
New councillors such as me and other colleagues on these Benches who were elected in Edinburgh and Lothian region were (deluged with letters. They were not all from constituents and other ratepayers. They came from Ministers and the Secretary of State himself. He had occasion to write more than once to the committee that I chaired, complaining about the low level of services after he had inflicted cuts.
The same is true of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who wrote to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) complaining about the effect of deregulation of the buses—a measure for which he had voted and which inflicted considerable suffering and hardship on his constituents. That, I am afraid, is hypocrisy of the worst order.
Lothian region suffered Government cuts of £80 million between 1980 and 1987, but it was ruled by so-called prudent Tories for four of those seven years. For every year of Conservative rule between 1982 and 1986, the administration of Councillor Brian Meeks could not meet the Government guidelines because they were so draconian.
The Minister invited moderate authorities to look at their budgets again. When Councillor Meeks' Conservative administration looked at its budget again when it was over the guidelines in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986, it cut services again and again. It robbed senior citizens of their concessionary bus passes. It slashed meals on wheels services to the elderly and disabled. It removed teaching posts, depriving schools of specialist teachers. When Conservative Members represented Edinburgh, they wrote to Councillor Meeks complaining of the cuts of which they were the authors. Those were the effects of rate grant settlements such as this.
We firmly believe that spending on local government is spending wisely. The biggest money-wasters that we have seen in the time of the present Government, and of Governments after 1979, have been Government Departments. Their excesses have been criticised, year in year out, by the Public Accounts Committee; and the officers whom they have appointed to quangos—there are many within the patronage of the Secretary of State and his Ministers—have, in many cases, discharged their duties appallingly.
Why does not the Secretary of State turn his attention to those Departments? [Interruption.] I am asked to name them. I shall name one of many: Lothian health board, which has reduced the Health Service in Edinburgh to a state of chaos and a shambles. For the first time in Scotland, we have seen strikes not just by ancillary workers, but by nurses—who are members of royal colleges, brought out on the streets by the mishandling of

the situation by the current Minister of Health, who should resign forthwith, and by appointees of the Secretary of State, who in many instances have replaced good members of the health board. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) complains, but he challenged me to name some of the authorities concerned. The hon. Gentleman has had his say, and wasted the time of the House when he did so. He challenged me to name some of the abuses of the present Government and some of the waste for which they are responsible, and I have given one example.
I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion, because many of my colleagues want to give examples from their authorities. I have revealed the hypocrisy of the Government, whose Ministers have first inflicted on local government cuts of the worst order, and then written to the councillors complaining about the effect of those cuts. I hope that the Secretary of State will give some explanation.

Mr. Brian Wilson: While my hon. Friend is going through the litany of the dirty little deals in which the Government are involved on quangos, does he recognise that the former leader of Lothian regional council—the man who boasted after the general election of having brought the Secretary of State for Scotland into politics as his protege—was rewarded with quite a few pieces of silver when he was made vice-chairman of Livingston development corporation?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is right. I understand that it is a part-time post which carries a multi-thousand pound salary, and that he had been neither chairman nor vice-chairman before.

Mr. Allan Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Is it in order for Opposition Members to make specific allegations about individuals which have nothing to do with rate support grant?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The orders allow a fairly wide debate, but we must stick to local government expenditure.

Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The problem with Conservative Members is that they like to dish it out to the weak in society, but cannot take it. The reason that I am not still in the council that I had the privilege to represent for seven years is that the local government Minister made such a shambles of running local government that the constituents whom I now have the honour to represent threw him out. Conservative Members like to pick on the weak. We saw what they did in Lothian region and in Edinburgh, which was under Tory rule for decades. They picked on the poorest tenants and on pensioners who rely on sheltered housing, public transport and meals on wheels. When we remind Conservative Members of that they do not like it one bit.
The rate support grant order will penalise local government, which will have to take the blame for many of the decisions for which the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends are responsible. Local councils in Scotland have had enough. I predict that more Labour councillors than ever before will be returned for Edinburgh district and that that result will be reflected throughout Scotland. It will be due to the caring policies of Labour councillors in Edinburgh and elsewhere. They have defended services


against the onslaught of the Secretary of State, who knows that this settlement is not enough to fund adequate local spending. He is not prepared to allow local councillors to decide for themselves, in consultation with the ratepayers.
The artificial limits that have been imposed on the rate support grant settlement will rebound on the Secretary of State in May when the Conservatives will lose even more seats than they lost at the general election.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) must be a very worried man if he has to start his election campaign so soon in an effort to try to win a few seats in Edinburgh. The trouble is that he has the misfortune to belong to a party that has no idea about local government finance.
The hon. Gentleman has shouted the odds tonight about cuts in local government expenditure and cuts in the National Health Service. That shows how far he is removed from reality. Everybody knows that far more money is being spent on local government and the National Health Service than ever before. The cuts to which the hon. Gentleman referred are fanciful cuts in mythical budgets put forward by authorities that are prepared to spend unlimited amounts of other people's money on satisfying their own egos.
The hon. Gentleman knows that an immense amount of money is being spent on the National Health Service in Scotland and that there are far more nurses, doctors, dentists and specialists than ever before, but he has had the cheek to say that the National Health Service is in a state of chaos. That is not so. When he replies to the debate, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will take the opportunity to support what I have said. Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South is completely out of his depth.
I welcome the orders. They mean an increase of £338 million in rate support grant, or 9 per cent. That figure includes £170 million of additional money over and above what was provided for in the public expenditure White Paper. That is good news for Scotland. Opposition Members should be welcoming it rather than girning away in their usual fashion whenever we debate Scottish affairs. That substantial increase in the amount of money that is being provided for local government will allow current expenditure to increase. It will also allow resources to be made available for pay increases to the police, the firemen and the teachers. There is no question of cuts being made. After a long haul, there has been success in regard to support for sports clubs. In a Labour Government Finance Bill in 1968 I first proposed that rate relief should he mandatory rather than discretionary for sports clubs. That was opposed by the Labour Government. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has now introduced the measure and has allowed for new money in this rate support grant to help sports clubs, as I am sure is the unanimous view of everybody in the House tonight.
When we considered the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, we looked in depth at the amazing anomalies between major stadia and more humble sports facilities. The anomaly on valuation between Scotland and England is still quite excessive. I hope that this is not the end of the matter. The procedures laid down under that Act have worked to an extent for some of our major football grounds, such as Ibrox and

Tynecastle, and so on, but are not as successful as I suspect those who drafted that Bill hoped in the original stages of the legislation.
I am pleased, too, that in the Dumfries and Galloway region, with the two district councils within it that I represent—Annandale and Eskdale, and Nithsdale—the guidelines now meet assessed needs. That has been a request by those local authorities for many years, and I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has now been able to meet it. The region has had an increase of 11 per cent., or £9·5 million, and a needs element increase of 4·4 per cent., or £2 million, yet having achieved that satisfactory result, it wishes to put up the rates by about 20 per cent. That is incomprehensible. There is no reason to blame the Government or for the region to say, having achieved what it wants, that it must now raise expenditure because of the increased availability of resources from the Government.
The districts have been well looked after by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. If we take into account not only the rate support grant but the housing support through the housing revenue account and non-HRA orders, they have been favourably treated this year, as they were last year. Their criticisms of lack of resources have been removed. As Opposition Members would say, all local authorities are keen to have more resources, but there are limits in the world of prudent housekeeping because of the priority of keeping clown inflation. If we were to let local authorities have carte blanche to spend what they liked, we should be in a spiral of rising inflation and unemployment, two important things that we do not want.
Opposition Members tend to forget some of their statements about local government finance last summer at the time of the general election. They said that they were keen to return to the old discredited system of rates. In their manifesto, they said that a property tax had "real advantages" and that they wanted a "wide expansion of resources". So Opposition Members want more unemployment, more inflation and more taxation. They do not begin to understand the repercussions of some of their policies—

Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hector Monro: I shall give way if I wish to do so. The hon. Gentleman must sit down and wait.
The Opposition also said that they wished to rate agricultural land and buildings, which would be hard on farmers who are going through a difficult transition period under the common agricultural policy.

Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to increases in taxation, does he agree with the figures that have been produced by the Library that show that at 1986 figures, far from being £250 per head, the poll tax will, if the Government continue the cuts of the past few years in funding local authorities and hold the business rate steady, as they have said they will, be £450 for every man, woman and adult over 18 years of age? Is an average family having to pay a poll tax of £2,000 per annum the hon. Gentleman's idea of a cut in taxation?

Sir Hector Monro: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. I have looked carefully at the figures and at answers to parliamentary questions, and the


combined community charge and water rate will be £190. For the average couple, and particularly for the widow or single person, living in reasonable accommodation, it will be a great advantage. I do not want to start an argument on the community charge at this time of night, but the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will find that it is a much fairer tax than any of the proposals that I have quoted from the Labour party manifesto, which were a rating disaster in terms of political advancement.
Labour Members should be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the rate support grant that he has put forward. It should be warmly welcomed by all local authorities.

11. 46 pm

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: It has been claimed this year, and many a year before, that COSLA and Scottish local authorities are grateful for and pleased with the year's rate support grant. That has always sounded like a battered wife being pleased because her husband is battering her no more this year than he did last year.
The accusation about overspending is particularly unjust, and it carries no evidence with regard to Scottish local authorities. It is particularly amusing because it has been made at a time when we have been reading about Westminster city council, which has sold three cemeteries—one for a mere £1 to a developer, who promptly sold it to another developer for millions of pounds. Relatives who have been visiting the graves of their families for more than 50 years have complained that those well-kept cemeteries have now become wastelands. There is not one Scottish local authority that would dream of conducting itself in such a manner. With such activities going on, it is amazing that Conservative Members dare to talk about the wastefulness of Scottish local authorities.
The Government show no sign of answering the points that have been made during the debate by Labour Members. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) claimed that new money was being made available for sports clubs. The COSLA document has pointed out—I am sure that Ministers must have read it—that the overall grant percentage has been maintained in line with this year's figure, so the compensation to authorities for grant relief is not new money. It has been earmarked and transferred from sums that would otherwise have been available for general needs grant.
The hon. Member for Dumfries claims to understand local government finance. He had a go at Labour Members and said that they know nothing about it. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman realies on the forelock-tugging peasantry in his locality putting faith in his understanding of local government finance. The reality is that very few people do understand it. The Government hope that, because of the widespread lack of understanding of it, they will get away with their schemes.
It has been said that for about half the population of Scotland the increase will be only 3 per cent. on this year's budgeted level. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) observed, pay and price increases have been about twice as much as that. The Minister's response was to argue that wages are within the direct control of local authorities. That makes me wonder whether the Minister knows anything about wage

bargaining in the local authority section at all levels, including manual workers, those in the craft trades and professionals. Surely the Minister knows that bargaining takes place at an all-Britain level with representatives from all the local authorities in the management team. Following the bargaining there is all-Britain acceptance of that which has been negotiated. There are no individual decisions on what pay levels will be. Is the Minister suggesting that there should be a move away from the national negotiating machinery? If he or his colleagues take that view, they should say so plainly, to make it clear to the people that that is what they are about. A couple of Ministers came out with the suggestion last year, and I am sure that Scottish local authorities will want to know whether the same suggestion is being made by the Scottish Office.
In addition to the pay and price increases, there is the final stage of the teachers' pay award and the new housing benefit arrangements that will come into force in April. There are many pressures on local government and I hope that just for once my colleagues and I will receive answers to our questions.
The majority do not have a grasp of the complexities of local government finance. That being so, the bunch on the Government Benches hope to get away with their chicanery. However, the public know when services are being cut. They know when streets are swept less often, when bins are being emptied less often and when they cannot have home helps. They know who are responsible and they know who they will be voting for come the next general election.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I shall be brief, not because there is a shortage of things to say, but because I realise that the debate will shortly be brought to an end.
There has been a clear difference between the speeches of Opposition Members, such as the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), and those of Conservative Members. The speeches of Conservative Members have been based on unreality and we have heard reality from Opposition Members who have served in local government. I faced the reality of several rate support grant orders when I was in local government. I know that local government is basically underfunded for the tasks that central Government place upon it. Central Government constantly place more tasks on local government without providing it with adequate finance. They go further than that by hedging in local government by means of arbitrary guidelines.
Needs allowances are unrelated to the needs of the people of Scotland, and that is allied to the fall in rate support grant settlements. There is a deliberate policy of shifting the funding of local government, including the rate support grant, from central Government and placing it on the shoulders of ratepayers. All local authorities throughout Scotland, even Conservative-controlled ones that are supposedly prudent, have been loud in their complaints to the Government about the treatment that they have received while attempting to provide services for those who elected them.
I wish to dispel the myth of high-spending local authorities. I should be interested to see evidence to contradict the COSLA critique, which demonstrates that local government tries to give value for money and tries


in a professional way throughout Scotland to provide high-quality services at reasonable costs. If the Government want local authorities to provide services, they must realise that that cannot be done on the cheap. Angus district council, for example, had its needs allowance halved in one year. Such violent swings in the supply of central Government finance are obviously harmful and make it difficult for local authorities to operate. It is only central Government's estimates of local needs that change, not the needs themselves.
Paragraph 4 of appendix F of the order shows that the so-called overspend of £122 million resulted in a clawback of £202 million. That cannot be regarded as anything but a punishment, and that is unfair to those who use local government services.
I ask the Government to explain the £12 million allocation for the collection of poll tax payments. Angus district council estimates that there will be £300,000 in capital costs and £360,000 in revenue costs. That is one district — what about the other 52? Tayside region estimates that £4 million will be required for accommodation for people working on the poll tax. How can that equate with the £12 million offered? If the sum is inadequate, will the Government give extra cash to meet these needs and consult COSLA?

Mr. Lang: It would be overstating it to say that this has been a productive debate. It has at least been interesting and somewhat predictable. There was a good deal of indignation, most of it plainly synthetic in view of the generous settlement.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) referred to cuts in the rate support grant percentage. If he really wants to look at cuts in the RSG percentage, he should look back to the period of the last Labour Government, who reduced the RSG percentage from 75 per cent. to 68·5 per cent., which in one fell swoop reduced it by 4 per cent. more than this Government have ever reduced it by. As for the argument that by keeping the RSG percentage constant it might somehow lead to more stable local government expenditure, over the four-year period when we left it at 68·5 per cent. local government expenditure rose by no less than 60 per cent.
The hon. Member for Cathcart suggested that consultation with COSLA was a sham and that it wants a much more generous settlement. COSLA wanted £3,679 million and got £3,637·53 million. Indeed, the only difference between ourselves and COSLA was over the estimate of the local government inflation rate. All the details of the grant distribution—the domestic element, the ratio of needs to resources, the use of the client group method, the minimum grant increase, the grant percentage—were precisely what COSLA asked for.
The hon. Member for Cathcart said that some authorities would get only a 3 per cent. increase in their guideline, and COSLA pointed out that that was about half the population. As the total increase is 5·2 per cent. over budget, it is therefore demonstrable that the other half of the population would get a considerably larger increase. Authorities such as Strathclyde and Lothian have a 3 per cent. increase in their guideline. Spending levels were some £15 million over assessed need in Strathclyde and £16 million over assessed need in Lothian. As for the 4 per cent. increase in provision for 1988–89 including some £12 million for the community charge introduction,

the hon. Member for Cathcart is plain wrong. If he had listened to me, he would have been aware that the £12 million is in addition to the 4 per cent. increase in grant.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business):—

The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 159.

Division No. 143]
[11.57 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Franks, Cecil


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Freeman, Roger


Allason, Rupert
French, Douglas


Amess, David
Gale, Roger


Amos, Alan
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Arbuthnot, James
Gill, Christopher


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Ashby, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Aspinwall, Jack
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Atkins, Robert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkinson, David
Gow, Ian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gregory, Conal


Baldry, Tony
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Batiste, Spencer
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grist, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ground, Patrick


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Body, Sir Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hannam, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Boswell, Tim
Harris, David


Bottomley, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bowis, John
Hayes, Jerry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Brazier, Julian
Hayward, Robert


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heddle, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hind, Kenneth


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Buck, Sir Antony
Holt, Richard


Budgen, Nicholas
Howard, Michael


Burns, Simon
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Butler, Chris
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butterfill, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cash, William
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Irvine, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jack, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Janman, Timothy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cran, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knapman, Roger


Curry, David
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knowles, Michael


Day, Stephen
Knox, David


Devlin, Tim
Lang, Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover, Den
Leigh, Edward (Gainsborgh)


Durant, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evennett, David
Lightbown, David


Fallon, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)






McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malins, Humfrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N,


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thorne, Neil


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Maude, Hon Francis
Thurnham, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mellor, David
Tracey, Richard


Miller, Hal
Tredinnick, David


Mills, Iain
Trippier, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Sir Hector
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Walden, George


Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Waller, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Ward, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Nicholls, Patrick
Watts, John


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Patnick, Irvine
Wheeler, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Ray


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Ryder, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilshire, David


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis
Woodcock, Mike


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Summerson, Hugo
Mr. David Maclean and


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Kenneth Calisle.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Allen, Graham
Clay, Bob


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashdown, Paddy
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Crowther, Stan


Beith, A. J.
Cryer, Bob


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cummings, J.


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blair, Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Boyes, Roland
Darling, Alastair


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dixon, Don


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Doran, Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Douglas, Dick


Buchan, Norman
Dunnachie, James


Buckley, George
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Caborn, Richard
Eadie, Alexander


Callaghan, Jim
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)





Fisher, Mark
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foulkes, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Morgan, Rhodri


Galbraith, Samuel
Morley, Elliott


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Brien, William


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Neill, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pendry, Tom


Haynes, Frank
Pike, Peter


Hinchliffe, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Prescott, John


Home Robertson, John
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Hood, James
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Reid, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rogers, Allan


Illsley, Eric
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ingram, Adam
Rowlands, Ted


Johnston, Sir Russell
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Lamond, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Leadbitter, Ted
Steinberg, Gerald


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Terry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Litherland, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Livsey, Richard
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Turner, Dennis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Vaz, Keith


McAllion, John
Wall, Pat


McAvoy, Tom
Wallace, James


McCartney, Ian
Walley, Ms Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wareing, Robert N.


McKelvey, William
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McLeish, Henry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McTaggart, Bob
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McWilliam, John
Wilson, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Worthington, Anthony


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Meale, Alan
Mr. Allen Adams and


Michael, Alun
Mr. David Marshall.


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 3) Order 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION

Resolved,
That the Revaluation Rate Rebates (Scotland) Order 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

PETITIONS

Abortion (Amendment) Bill

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I beg to ask leave to present a petition to the House. It is signed by 420 of my constituents and says that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which proposes to reduce the upper limit for abortions, will, if enacted, restrict women's choices, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the Abortion Act 1967.
I present this petition to the House as an expression of a small minority view in my constituency, but the people who express it are entitled to have me present their petition.
I have a second petition which I present on behalf of 480 people in the constituency of Harrow, East, and I do so on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). It is in the same words and to the same effect as the petition from the people of Harrow, West.
To lie upon the Table.

Ozone Layer

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Hugo Summerson: Without the sun there would be no life on earth, but the sun is an enemy as well as a friend. It emits ultra-violet radiation which would be very dangerous to all life. Fortunately, we have a defence in the ozone layer.
What is ozone? To give it its technical description, it is a blue gaseous allotrope of oxygen derived or formed naturally from diatomic oxygen by electric discharge or exposure to ultra-violet radiation. The ozone layer occurs in a region of atmosphere between 15 and 30 km high. There is not a great deal of it; if it were all gathered in one layer at ground level it would be about the thickness of a £1 coin.
How is the ozone layer formed, and what does it do? Ultra-violet light, which has a very short wave length and is emitted from the sun, splits the oxygen molecules into two atoms and forms ozone by reaction. Thus, in a beautiful natural interaction the sun provides the earth with a defence against its own ultra-violet radiation as the ozone layer absorbs that radiation, stopping it reaching the ground. Now this crucial defence is being eroded and dissolved. Over Antarctica it is shattered. What on earth is happening?
The British Antarctic Survey has studied the ozone layer since 1957. In 1982 it noticed strange depletions in the layer over Antarctica. Before then, observed and predicted changes were less than 1 per cent. per decade. Now the ozone content has more than halved in a period of 30 to 40 days each year. It is down to the thickness of a penny.
This is happening particularly over Antarctica because of a phenomenon called the polar vortex. The combined effects of extreme cold at —80 deg C and strong westerly winds ensure that the air over Antarctica remains isolated from the mid-latitude air, which is relatively rich in ozone. In spring, with the dying down of the vortex, the level of ozone should recover. It has done in the past, but now it does not, and ozone is most depleted where there should be most of it.
Why is the ozone disappearing? Theories based on the solar cycle and on a mechanism of upwelling air are no longer tenable. An enormous experiment, the airborne Antarctic ozone experiment, was carried out last year between 19 August and 30 September by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration in conjunction with the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the Chemical Manufacturers Association, joined by the British Meteorological Office.
The powerful experiment showed that the abundance of chlorine monoxide—I shall come to its sources—at 18 km was sufficient to account for the observed rate of decrease of ozone. Within the polar vortex the amount of hydrochloric acid was very low, which led the scientists to believe that the release of chlorine from hydrochloric acid must play a major part in the story of the ozone hole. The scientists also obtained some evidence to support the view that the release of chlorine occurs from particles in the polar stratosphere.
What is causing the destruction of the ozone layer? There are natural causes, but there has always been a balance between the rate of destruction and the rate of renewal. The ozone layer cannot cope with the man-made gases, chloroflurocarbons, or CFCs, which were invented in 1928 and have proved extremely useful. They are relatively non-toxic, non-flammable and stable. They are used as propellants in aerosols, in refrigerators and air-conditioning systems, in the dry cleaning industry, foam-blowing processes, for such things as fast food packaging, fire-fighting, home insulation and as solvents in the microelectronics industry.
The CFCs, after use, escape into the stratosphere, where they are decomposed by sunlight to free chlorine, which destroys ozone. Unfortunately, CFCs have a very long life; they can last for more than 100 years. This means that an 85 per cent. cut in CFCs is needed immediately just to stabilise concentrations at today's levels. In 1986 global production of CFCs was about 750,000 tonnes.
What would be the consequences if the ozone layer were destroyed? The Fat Boy in "Pickwick Papers" said:
I wants to make your flesh creep.
No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not want to make your flesh creep, nor do I want to make your flesh ulcerate. Malignant melanoma skin cancers, corneal tumours on the eyes and acute photokeratitis are just some of the effects of undiluted solar ultra-violet radiation.
Beautiful bronzed bodies lying on the beach will be a thing of the past. We need not think that because we do not get as much sun as, for example, Australia and New Zealand, where skin cancers are already on the increase, we will not suffer as badly. Clouds do not stop ultra-violet radiation. Ozone depletion also has appalling consequences for plants and, therefore, agriculture. Effects include decreased photosynthesis and yield and changes in flowering patterns. Field research on soya beans, for instance, shows a 25 per cent. decrease in yield as a result of exposure to a comparable increase in ultra-violet radiation.
Concern about damage to the ozone layer is relatively new. It first arose in 1974, following publication of a paper on the subject by two American academics, Rowland and Molina. That concern led to increased international research into the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer and to precautionary action in many countries. In 1977 the United Nations environment programme set up the coordinating committee on the ozone layer. This was followed by the Vienna convention on the protection of the ozone layer, adopted in 1985. The United Kingdom signed it in May 1985 and ratified it in May 1987. Before then, different measures were taken in different countries. The United States banned all non-essential uses of CFCs in aerosols, but did not control other uses of CFCs, which continued to grow, particularly in foam, plastics and solvent cleaning. Canada and the Nordic countries did much the same, but the EEC, in decisions in 1980 and 1982, sought to limit CFC production while reducing CFC uses, particularly in aerosols, with a reduction of 30 per cent. by the end of 1981.
However, it was clear that international measures were the best way forward. Negotiations on a protocol to the Vienna convention began in December 1986 and were concluded on 16 September 1987, with the adoption of the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone

layer. This was signed by the United Kingdom, the EEC, the United States of America, Japan and 23 other countries and should come into force on 1 January 1989. It provides for control of emissions of the five most dangerous types of CFCs in three stages: first, a freeze on consumption, calculated at 1986 levels, 18 months after the protocol comes into force; secondly, a 20 per cent. reduction by the year ending 30 June 1994; and, thirdly, a further 30 per cent. reduction by the year ending 30 June 1999. Thus there will be a total reduction of 50 per cent. by the year 2000. However, the protocol allows for the corresponding production figures to be 10 per cent. higher in the first two stages and 15 per cent. at the third to give industry the room to rationalise and to ensure continuing supplies for developing countries which are party to the protocol to meet their basic domestic needs.
These measures are subject to review at least every four years, beginning in 1990 in the light of new information. There are special provisions to help countries which produce small amounts of CFCs to rationalise and to allow countries with extra production already planned to take that into account, subject to limitations on their base year figures. EEC countries can fulfil their obligations jointly. There are provisions limiting trade with countries which are not party to the protocol and giving developing countries more time to comply. But these provisions are designed to encourage more countries to join the protocol.
Whether or not these provisions are satisfactory, it is at least a sign that many countries are concerned, to a large or small extent, about the damage to the ozone layer. Views differed about what was necessary as at that time there were scientific uncertainties about the extent of the damage and the speed with which alternatives to CFCs could be developed and brought into use.
Since the NASA experiment which, unfortunately, finished after the Montreal protocol had been signed, scientific opinion is now much clearer on the damage that has been done and is being done. A hole the size of the United States in the ozone layer over the Antarctic is the clearest possible warning that we are overburdening the atmosphere. I believe that the measures taken in the protocol—and I pay tribute to those responsible for it—are not sufficient to protect the ozone layer. The parties to the protocol can agree to amend it, if there is new evidence pointing to the need for more stringent measures. We now have that new evidence and we need those more stringent measures with great urgency.
It is no good procrastinating and saying "Oh dear, the ozone layer has gone. Now we had better do something." If we lock the stable door after the horse has bolted, we can always get another horse, but to replace part of the atmosphere is a different matter altogether. It will be most interesting to see what results come from the joint French, West German and American expedition to the Arctic to check the position there.
What is to be done? I should like to set out a six-point programme. First, in the light of new knowledge, the parties to the Montreal protocol should meet as soon as possible to reconsider and toughen its provisions. Secondly, as there is still an enormous amount to be learnt about the atmosphere and the ozone layer, we need more and urgent research, more theory, more modelling and more use of super-computers. The Stratospheric Ozone Review Group set up by the Department of the Environment which published its first report in August 1987 is due to report again later this year, but there must


be better co-ordination between the various groups studying the atmosphere and I call for a national institute for atmospheric studies to be established.
Thirdly, all aerosol cans must be labelled. This is already happening with those cans which do not produce CFCs as propellants being labelled "Ozone Friendly", but the labelling should be mandatory. Meantime, one can get from Friends of the Earth a list of products which do not use CFCs as propellants.
Fourthly, all non-essential uses of CFCs must be eliminated as soon as possible. I am glad to see that ICI and ISC Chemicals have recently announced their participation, with 11 other companies, in a programme to develop suitable alternatives to CFCs. This work must be pushed on. Meantime, essential and non-essential uses should be strictly defined. We cannot risk the future of the earth for the sake of deodorants and fast food cartons. Having said that, I congratulate those companies which have stopped using CFCs in their packaging and aerosols.
Fifthly, we need a rigorous British standard for mobile air-conditioning plants in vehicles. These plants use CFCs as coolants and tend to leak.
Finally, there is a substance even more devastating than chlorine in the damage that it causes to ozone. Bromine is being used more and more in fire extinguishers which, at the urging of insurance companies, are tested at frequent intervals. A substitute for bromine must be found urgently, and it would help if some other means of testing fire extinguishers were used.
We have our warning and our opportunity and we must not miss it because it may be the last we have.

Mr. Michael Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) for allowing me to intervene briefly in his Adjournment debate. I wonder whether he and my hon. Friend the Minister would agree that recent moves by manufacturers of chlorofluorocarbons, not least ISC in my constituency, should be encouraged.
Manufacturers have pressed for the recent protocols, including the Montreal protocol to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow referred, as a breathing space to enable them to develop other chemicals —principally the halogenated chlorofluorocarbons—which in the long term will replace the chlorofluorocarbons currently used in the world market. This will enable ISC and ICI, the two principal United Kingdom companies in this market, to provide the same benefits to the consumer while avoiding the potential detriment to the environment represented by chlorofluorocarbons.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will encourage those companies to continue that necessary work to fill a gap in the market.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I will reply first to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). I fully recognise and support the important work being undertaken not only by the company in his constituency but by ICI and other international companies in researching and developing alternatives. That initiative is critical to the success of the work initiated in international forums.
I thank my hon. Friend for intervening at this late hour to place on record his well-known and deeply appreciated concern about this important issue. Perhaps I may, through him, also thank the company to which he has referred and the 10 other companies involved for their support, which is essential in identifying alternatives and in persuading consumers to change their pattern of consumption of goods containing not just halons but chlorofluorocarbons. The work being undertaken is well worthy of praise and a first step along a road that we wish to encourage further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) raised this important subject in a powerful maiden Adjournment speech and I congratulate him on his extremely useful contribution. It is not an easy subject and to have mastered it so early in a parliamentary career which I know will include great progress in the future is worthy of congratulation from both sides of the House. I am grateful to him.
The potential threat to the ozone layer is a major environmental issue of concern not just to the people of this country but to everyone on the planet, and rightly so. The ozone layer screens us all from harmful ultra-violet radiation from the sun and the consequences of significant global depletion would be very serious for human life as well as for animals and plants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow drew particular attention to the so-called Antarctic hole. The discovery of large depletions in the ozone layer over the Antarctic has focused attention even more sharply and has led to a great deal of international activity in which United Kingdom scientists have participated. Indeed the hole was discovered by Dr. Farman and colleagues at the British Antarctic Survey. The hole appears for some two months during the Antarctic spring and then recovers, but during 1987, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, it was clearly deeper and lasted longer than in previous years, and that must be a matter of concern for scientists throughout the world and to politicians.
There are many theories about the causes of the phenomenon. The initial findings of the major international scientific study of last autumn, in which the Meteorological Office collaborated closely, strongly suggest the involvement of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs as they are generally known. However, it is not quite as simple as that. The hole appears to be the result of a complex interaction of both chemical and meteorological processes. The key question is whether it is a localised phenomenon, unique to Antarctica, or whether there are global implications. In their initial findings the scientists leading the study have refused to rush into print. They emphasise that it is premature to speculate on the global implications until the causes of the hole are better understood. The results of the study are now being analysed, with the aim of publishing them after peer-reviewing in May.
Far from ignoring the problems, as some ill-informed critics have suggested, the British Government very much share the concern about the ozone layer. We have been closely involved in the measures that have already been taken to protect it. As long ago as 1980 the United Kingdom and other European Community member states took precautionary action when they agreed measures to control emissions of the two most widely used CFCs. Those are chemicals with the potential to destroy the ozone layer. They are widely used as propellants in aerosol


cans, in the manufacture of foam plastics, in refrigeration, air-conditioning and as solvents. The Community decided to limit overall production of CFCs 11 and 12 by placing a ceiling on production capacity. That was supplemented by a reduction in their use in aerosols by 30 per cent. and co-operation in reducing emissions from other uses. In the United Kingdom those requirements have been achieved by voluntary agreements with industry.
While Economic Community action concentrated mainly on overall production, a different approach was adopted by the United States. Far from banning CFCs outright, as is often claimed, the United States simply banned non-essential use of CFCs in aerosols. That left growth in other uses quite unconstrained. As the Americans have acknowledged, growth in other sectors, in particular rigid foam, has completely offset the effect of reductions in aerosol use. As a result, per capita consumption of CFCs in the United States remains as high as it is in the Economic Community.
Because the threat to the ozone layer is a global problem, I emphasise that it needs a global solution. The United Kingdom has been fully involved in wider international action. First, in 1985 the United Kingdom signed the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer. We were the first Economic Community country to ratify it in May last year. That framework convention, which will come into force later this year, covers such important matters as co-operation in monitoring research and information exchange.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow rightly stated, on 16 September last year in Montreal the United Kingdom and the European Community signed a protocol to the Vienna convention, along with the United States, Japan and 21 other countries. The protocol represents international commitment to control global emissions of not only CFCs but halons, which are chemicals used in fire extinguishers.
Although it may be unconventional and not customary in the House, it would be right of me to pay tribute to the work carried out by Fiona McConnell and her team at the Department of the Environment who did so much excellent work to ensure that the protocol was successful with a major British input and a major British lead. When I describe their work as having "commitment" and "sensitivity", that is no understatement. Those words are accurate and I use them to pay tribute to the work that the team undertook. If it is possible to distance myself for a minute from officials, it is a pleasure for me to state that if I was not at the Dispatch Box now, but sitting on the Back Benches, I would have equal commitment to the strength of the dedication and excellent work of the team to ensure that my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow and for Bristol, North-West were so well informed.
It does not matter to the ozone layer where chemicals such as CFCs come from. The Montreal protocol focuses on controlling overall emissions, not specific uses. That is clear endorsement by the international community of the need to tackle the totality of emissions rather than banning particular uses, which has been shown to be inefficient and ineffective.
The protocol provides for CFC consumption to be halved in three stages by the end of the century. First, it will be frozen in 1990 at 1986 levels. Secondly, it will be

cut by 20 per cent. in 1994. Thirdly, there will be a further 30 per cent. reduction in 1999. In addition, the consumption of the halons will be frozen at 1986 levels in 1992. The protocol also allows the possibility of individual parties' production to run at a slightly higher level than their consumption. The purpose of that provision has been misunderstood. It is solely for the purpose of giving industry the flexibility to rationalise and to ensure continuing supplies for developing countries which are parties to meet their basic domestic needs.
We are anxious that participation in the protocol should be as wide as possible. It was to encourage this that negotiators in Montreal agreed generous treatment for low-consuming developing countries by allowing them extra time before they impose controls. For the same reason, imports from countries not party to the protocol will be banned.
I pay tribute to the important role played by the European Commission, which was mandated to negotiate on behalf of the Community. The United Kingdom was also actively involved in the negotiations in strong support of the Commission. I believe that the Montreal protocol is a major environmental achievement. It is the first international measure designed to prevent rather than cure a global environmental problem. Everyone agreed that we could not afford to wait for positive proof of global ozone depletion.
Inevitably, there were differences on how far and how fast it was necessary and reasonable to go, given the scientific uncertainties about the extent to which the ozone layer might be depleted, the availability of alternatives to CFCs and the speed with which new substances and technologies could be developed. I have no doubt that the 50 per cent. cut in consumption is the highest on which it would have been possible to reach consensus, and no country sought a higher figure in the final round of negotiations in Montreal.
In my view, we have achieved a good environmental balance for taking prudent, anticipatory action which gives both producers and users of these extremely useful chemicals time to adjust. Industry has been given a clear signal of the need to develop alternatives to meet the timetable agreed by the international community. I might add that the United States sought a 20 per cent. increase in production at the first stage to benefit the industry, but the European Community resisted that move on environmental grounds and it was reduced to 10 per cent.
The crucial question, of course, is whether the protocol will do the job. Are the measures sufficient to safeguard the health and welfare of future generations? Clearly, there are uncertainties. How many countries will join the protocol? Will the Soviet Union sign up? How much growth will there be in developing countries' consumption? What can be done to prevent non-parties from producing CFCs and halons? Nevertheless, the Government's view is that, on the basis of current scientific understanding, the prudential measures in the protocol are adequate to prevent significant depletion in the global ozone layer. However—this is most important—if new evidence points to the need for more stringent global measures, the protocol can be amended.
It is important that the evidence suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow should be given a significant review. I am sure that that will be the case.


There are clear provisions for the measures to be reviewed every four years, but that does not negate the possibility of new scientific data being reviewed at any stage.
I hope that what I have said assists my hon. Friend and convinces him that the Government take the threat to the ozone layer seriously. We have played an active part in measures that have been taken to protect it, and we continue to keep the situation closely under review. If there are major new developments, further global action must and will be taken. I give that commitment. The agreement is remarkable for allowing enough flexibility for such a commitment to be given when there is a major

development in the international scientific community concerning the impact on the ozone layer of a variety of chemicals on the market.
I hope that I have helped my hon. Friends. I am grateful to them for raising this matter and I am sure that the House is indebted to them for the time that they have spent researching it and offering their wise counsel.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty minutes to One o'clock.